Thank you for your new question and asking for me.
The fact the prosecutor did not mention or address the new evidence means they do not have an argument for that or they intentionally avoided it. Thus, your response should be focused on that new evidence showing that their expert was erroneous.
Your argument is that the Oklahoma statute on driving while intoxicated (until November 2013) states: Is under the influence of any intoxicating substance other than alcohol which may render such person incapable of safely driving or operating a motor vehicle
. Thus, you argue they did not prove he was incapable of safely driving or operating a vehicle.
I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.
Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO RECEIVE ANY CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.
Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.