Estimated reading time (in minutes)
Acquittal for surveillance In this case, a man was facing charges of driving under the influence of alcohol, with a blood alcohol level of 1.15 g/litre, on December 9, 2011. However, he was released without penalty or charge due to one important factor: a simple unchecked box .
The Consequences of an Unchecked Box: Acquittal in a DUI Case:-
The incident happened when the driver was involved in a traffic accident . Witnesses present at the scene immediately alerted the authorities, who carried out a breathalyzer test which confirmed his intoxication. Subsequently, the driver was taken to hospital for treatment and the judicial police officer in charge of the investigation asked a doctor to take blood samples for analysis by a laboratory to determine the level drunkenness of the driver.
The doctor, although accepting the mission and collecting the requested blood samples, did not take a written oath. Furthermore, it was discovered that the doctor was not registered on the national list of experts drawn up by the Court of Cassation or on the list of experts drawn up by the Court of Appeal. This failure is due to a simple oversight: the doctor forgot to tick the box on the requisition form which required acceptance of the mission and the oath of assistance to justice in honor and conscience. Consequently, the legal requirement set out in articles 60 and 77-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, imposing a written oath on non-registered experts, was not respected.
The Importance of Procedural Compliance: Lessons from the Unscrupulous Physician:-
Consequently, on June 26, 2012, the criminal court of Niort decided that the blood samples taken by the doctor, as well as all the acts subsequent to the case, including the laboratory analysis, were canceled. The analysis had initially revealed a blood alcohol level of 1.15 g/litre.
In the end , due to the doctor’s inadvertence and failure to take the required oath, the accused was acquitted. The charge of driving in a state of obvious intoxication could not be accepted, the only physical proof of the consumption of alcohol by the defendant having been obtained by the doctor who had not taken the necessary oath.
This case is a reminder of the significant impact that a seemingly minor administrative error can have on judicial proceedings. The law firm handling this case specializes in these matters and encourages people in similar situations to seek appropriate legal advice. Contacting experienced professionals can make a substantial difference when it comes to dealing with the intricacies of the legal system.
