Thanks for your response.
You said: "You can contact the clerk, or submit a motion. " When you say submit a motion are you talking about a motion for a hearing or is it possible to submit a motion for a status check?
My son's release date is Nov 15, 2013. That's the date he has been given by jail administration and that date reflects the 2 days credit for every day served. If he would be able to get the 5 days credit for every 4 served, his release date would be Oct 9. We thought it would be best to wait until Oct 1 or later to submit the grievance for the 5 day for every 4 credit so the jail administrators will not have time to change his work or anything. Do you think Oct 1 or Oct 7 would be better?
You asked:"Does he have a basis to believe the prison administration would retaliate by changing his job if he filed a grievance? Has that happened at the jail?"
There is just a general distrust. The fact that they have told him he only gets one or the other credit and the sheriff handbook shows clearly he should get both is enough to make us distrustful about the way the might behave even though it would be against the rules and regs to retaliate. I have come to the conclusion that this entire legal system including the jail system is corrupt. What do you think?
Another point is don't think the judge has a time limit on when he has to write his opinion does he? I am thinking the politically correct thing for the judge in this case is to let the defendant stay in jail as long as possible. I am certain the judge is in no hurry to let my son out of jail even though he may deserve it.
One other question. It has been more than thirty days since my son filed his response to the prosecution response. They would not be allowed to respond again at this late date would they?
I appreciate your response. It just seems like a never ending battle for us, but we intend to continue the fight as long as we can. Here are a couple of questions that I don't think you saw. I added them later.
One other question. It has been more than thirty days since my son filed his response to the prosecution response. They would not be allowed to respond again at this late date would they?
Thanks for the reminder the the petition still has merit even if my son gets out of jail before a decision is made on the petition.
Just came back from visiting my son in jail and he was saying he wanted to go ahead and submit that grievance now. I told him that you also thought now would be good. He said it appears they are trying to do things better in the jail for one thing they have a deadline of today from the department of health to resolve the overcrowded situation one way or another. He thought this would be a good time to submit his grievance as he already has it written up. So he will be submitting it today.
I want to thank you at this time for all the help you have given us throughout this entire ordeal . We truly, truly appreciate and value your assistance.
As mentioned in previous post ASCLD claimed that the toxocologist statements was supported scientific litierature.
Is there any authority I can file a complaint with against ASCLD for performing a bogus investigation?
Also can I file a complaint with the Oklahoma attorney general against the toxocolgist for lying under oath or making statements not consistent with scientific literature?
The prosecution just posted a 4 page letter they received from OSBI to ASCLD stating their case in defense of the toxicolgist testimony. In the beginning of their defense he mentioned they consulted with 4 other experts in the toxicology field. She (Director of Criminalist Service Division) did not mention any feedback from them She also mentioned that in the labratory case file there was an opinion from an independent analyst. She said this opinion was provided to their analyst by the prosecution attorney prior to trial. She said the prosecution requested our analyst to review the opinion and provide feed back as he had only filed a misdemeanor negligent homicide charge out of concern the the state could not prove marijuana impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, yet Dr. R's opinion was that the defendant was impaired by marijuana. She also said that in addition to reviewing Dr. R. opinion they contacted the attorney who handled the civil case to see if their were transcripts of his testimony but the civil case was settled without the need for Dr. R's testimony...
First off I read that opinion by Dr. R. and it was totally biased and unscientific. He literally made up information he did not have like the time of use of the mj. This was a multimillion dollar lawsuit so he said what he had to say to win.
My question: is this even legal for the prosecution to give a biased report the the analyst who is going to be testifying in the trial in question?
The main point of OSBI letter was to try and discredit the studies attached to the APCR and to also say that their expert did not say the that 1-1.5 ng of thc will cause impairment but can cause impairment.
They specifically only reviewed the trial transcript because the language in that transcript does say "can cause impairment". But the fact is the language in the Motion Hearing did say "studies show 1-1.5 ng of thc will cause impairment" And the motion hearing was what caused the judge to allow the testimony into trial. She also argued that their can be different opinions on the same scientific study.
This letter was sent to ASCLD on Aug 8. The prosecution is just now posting it and sending copy to my son in response to the motion for exculpatory evidence. The letter overall I thought was weak. I especially noted she did not list a single comment from the four experts they consulted. She only mentioned the one expert that was paid thousands of dollars to help win a civil case. Again the question was it legal for prosecution to send this opinion to OSBI's analyst clearly to sway his testimony? Also the defense did not have a chance to cross examine Dr. R.
Hello again. What struck me most about the further information was your statement "She also argued that their can be different opinions on the same scientific study." This is interesting because that's not what she argued at trial, and that statement also supports your argument based on ineffective assistance of counsel. A defense expert could have refuted the prosecutor's expert. The studies you have, however, unquestionably support that there is no impairment at the level of thc found. And although the prosecution now has 4-5 toxicologists who agree, they have yet to come up with one scientific study that supports their position. Your question: Is this even legal for the prosecution to give a biased report the the analyst who is going to be testifying in the trial in question?Yes, it is legal. However, the report should have been disclosed to defense counsel at the time of trial so that the defendant could have used it while cross-examining the toxicologist. It is evidence of bias and influence and that he agreed with the other expert who was not available for cross-examination rather than make up his own mind. So, the fact that the opinion of the absent expert behind the testifying toxicologist was not brought out at trial either supports your argument of ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel didn't ask about any consultation or review of other opinions obtained by the prosecutor on which the expert opinion was based in discovery, and/or that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence. The reason that the toxicologist testified that it could impair rather than that it did impair is that experts in a criminal trial are only permitted to give testimony regarding hypothetical situations rather make a conclusion in a particular case that would invade the province of the jury. The prosecutor very well knows that the difference is barely perceptible and the distinction lost on a jury. If a jury hears that it can impair, and doesn't hear anything to contradict that, then they are likely to come to the conclusion that it did in the particular case.
You made this statement: "..Yes, it is legal. However, the report should have been disclosed to defense counsel at the time of trial so that the defendant could have used it while cross-examining the toxicologist......So, the fact that the opinion of the absent expert behind the testifying toxicologist was not brought out at trial either supports your argument of ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel didn't ask about any consultation or review of other opinions obtained by the prosecutor on which the expert opinion was based in discovery, and/or that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence..."Trial counsel in his motion for discovery requested specifically the following: (among other things) "..An opportunity to inspect, review, and obtain copies of reports, records, and/or other evidentiary material which is the basis for an opinion of a state's expert witness..."
Also the following: ".. An opportunity to inspect, review, and/or copy all evidentiary material and real evidence including copies of fingerprints, instruments , clothing or paraphernalia relating to the charge filed against thid Defendant.."
It appears to me that these two request should have covered the opinion the prosecution had in their possession and gave to OSBI toxicologist but not to trial defense counsel. So wouldn't this be failure to disclose exculpatory evidence? And if so how could this help the defendant at this time?
(I recall seeing the opinion by Dr R. in the office of the first attorney a year or more before trial(defendant had three defense counsels all together) but he got that opinion via email from civil case defense counsel. The attorney who was counsel at trial was never aware of it. Prosecution never gave defense a copy. The defendant had completely forgotten it by the time of trial.)
You made this statement: "The reason that the toxicologist testified that it could impair rather than that it did impair is that experts in a criminal trial are only permitted to give testimony regarding hypothetical situations rather make a conclusion in a particular case that would invade the province of the jury.."
However the toxicologist did testify in the Motion in limine hearing that it "did cause impairment" not that it "could cause impairment". He was under oath and his proffered testimony was to convince the judge that the defendant was impaired and he should therefore be allowed to testify in trial. If he had said in the hearing "could cause" impairment the judges opinion might have been different.
Is there some difference in the way he is allowed to phrase things in front of a judge in a hearing instead of in front of a jury? And again OSBI chose not to comment on his testimony in the hearing saying they were more concerned about what the witness said in front of a jury that might have caused a conviction. The fact is OSBI just did not want show that in the hearing he said "would cause impairment." But the point is if the expert had not convinced the judge the defendant was impaired in the hearing he never would have been allowed to speak to the jury.
I am adding this later. It appears that the botXXXXX XXXXXne still is if the defendant would have had an expert witness the out come of the hearing and trial would likely have been different. Wouldn't that still be the main point to focus on?
I am also thinking if I file a complaint with the attorney general they will want this report from OSBI. Wouldn't the fact OSBI did not review the motion hearing transcripts be important? And also the fact that they have not produced one sentence from any of their studies to support their arguments. The complaint including excerpts from hearing and trial. I am also thinking
Would it be appropriate to respond to the letter OSBI sent to the chairman of ASCLD? The defense did not have any comments about the letter. They just provided the letter as an attachment with their response to defendants motion for exculpatory evidence.
OSBI asked the experts 3 questions as follows: " In addition to reviewing the above documents, we solicited input from four different experts (two serving in leadership positions with the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Toxicology and two serving in leadership positions with the Society for Forensic Toxicologists. Specifically, we asked these experts whether their organizations had any guidlines (published or draft) which would provide expectations or best practices for testitifying regarding THC impariment, how quickly THC mebabolizes, and expected differences in THC concentrations and impairment if a sample is collected one hour post collision. We received feedback from three of the four individuals contacted..."
The defendant could respond that the letter did not use one line of information from the documents they reviewed to support any of their experts testimony. In addition the letter does not mention how the experts responded to the questions put to them and further, OSBI did not submit the most important question to the expert and that would be what level of THC causes driver impairment? This question and the others are not addressed in the letter. All they do is criticize the studies submitted by the defendant saying they are generally not unbiased, scientific studies
from peer reviewed journals and some of the cited studies reference outdated studies. But again they give nothing from their studies to support their expert's testimony. They also criticize the fact the our expert is not named and qualifications not given.
So the question is does this even deserve a response to prosecution's response since the prosecution had nothing to do with and is not commenting on the letter? Or would it be better to respond to ASCLD about what is missing in OSBI'S letter?
No problem on getting back to me. I've been busy today also.
Your questions:" I'm a bit confused. The defense did not have any comments about the letter. I think you meant the prosecution." Yes I did mean prosecution.
"OSBI sent the case to be evaluated by 4 experts, 3 of which responded. Was this for purpose of responding to the petition or at trial?" No. OSBI asked four experts about the complaint made to ASCLD/LAB. Here is the beginning of the letter to ASCLD from OSBI in reference to my complaint of questionable testimony by one of their toxicologist, the one who testified at my son's trial:
Re: Allegations of Questionabel Testimony (Case #XXXXX OSBI Lab #)
Dear Ms (Chairman of of ASCLD)
Our laboratory has reviewed the above referenced allegations which we received July 16, 2013. After reviewing the documentation provided by ASCLD/LAB, our agency collected and reviewed the following addition documantations: Copy of the Application for Post Conviction Relief, OSBI Laboratory case File 2009-xxxx, Copy of trancript (portion containing analysts testimony during trial), OSBI training manual references and other relevant literary references. (Four reference manuals are listed).
In addition to reviewing the above documentations we solicited inputs from four different experts....
So that should clear up that question.
"How did they get a copy of the studies the defendant is relying on?" They got the copies from the post conviction relief application which is online on the court web site.
"Did the judge receive the letter from OSBI to ASCLD?" I don't know if the judge received letter or not but the prosecutor handling the post conviction relief received the letter and posted on line withe his response to motion for exculpatory evidence.
"This is different from your other question on whether the testifying expert may have been influenced by another expert, right? This has nothing to do with that, right? "
This was part of the same letter from OSBI to ASCLD.
Sorry it has been so long in getting back to you. I have been dealing with personal issues from the time I sent the last series of questions. One problem was my computer was down for about 3 days due to a hacker.
Thank you for the information: I thought it might be good to respond to the letter to the court because I am sure the only reason the prosecution posted that letter is they felt it would help their cause and it is a good chance the judge will read it at some point. The following is a response. Let me know what you think.
COMES NOW the Petitioner, name, and hereby responds to the State Response to Petitioner’s Motion for the Production of Exculpatory and Mitigating Evidence.
The State does not acknowledge the receipt of any exculpatory evidence after the trial in this cause, however the State did attach a copy of a letter from OSBI to the Chairperson of ASCLD/LAB, the accrediting organization for OSBI laboratories. The letter, date Aug. 8, 2013, was in response to a complaint made to ASCLD/LAB about the questionable testimony of Mr. alleged in the Application for Post Conviction Relief in this cause at motion in limine hearing and trial on Nov 9, 2011. The complaint was made after the filing of the Application for Post conviction relief. The letter, signed by OSBI Director of Criminalistic Services Division, defends the testimony of Mr. as being based on scientific studies but gave no proof . Since the State filed the letter, the Petitioner responds to the main points of the letter as follows:
(1.) The letter notes that after receiving the complaint from ASCLD/LAB, OSBI reviewed a number of documents including two books about Marijuana. The letter states that " n addition to reviewing the above documents, we solicited input from four different experts (two serving in leadership positions with the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Toxicology and two serving in leadership positions with the Society for Forensic Toxicologists. Specifically, we asked these experts whether their organizations had any guidlines (published or draft) which would provide expectations or best practices for testitifying regarding THC impariment, how quickly THC mebabolizes, and expected differences in THC concentrations and impairment if a sample is collected one hour post collision. We received feedback from three of the four individuals contacted...."
Response to statements in point 1: With all the documents reviewed and experts consulted not one single word from the listed book and report on marijuana studies nor a single word from the experts consulted about several different questions related to THC was given in the letter to support Mr. testimony. Not only that, the most important question of all was not even asked. That would be does 1-1.5 ng/ml of THC in a persons blood cause driver impairment? This question was not asked of the experts nor did they quote from any of their reference books anything to support this statement made by Mr. .
However, an excerpt from a study found on National Institute of Health website (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17916224), titled "Developing Limits for Driving Under cannabis" states the following:
"...A comparison of meta-analyses of experimental studies on the impairment of driving-relevant skills by alcohol or cannabis suggests that a THC concentration in the serum of 7-10 ng/ml (appr. 3.5-5ng/ml whole blood) is correlated with an impairment comparable to that caused by a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05%. Thus, a suitable numerical limit for THC in serum may fall in that range..."
According to this study the amount of THC needed to cause driver impairment is 3.5-5 ng/ml in whole blood not 1-1.5 ng/ml that Mr.has stated in the Motion in Limine Hearing and trial.
That study found on the National Institute of Health website is by the same group of international experts who also wrote the larger more detailed study "Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis (DUIC)" which was used by the Petitioner as his primary evidence study in his Application for Post Conviction Relief. The letter spent a paragraph criticizing this study trying to minimize it’s credibility. But these experts are accepted as scientific experts by the National Institute of Health in the field of driving under the influence of cannabis. It would be difficult to find a higher level of credibility than that.
The letter also spends a lot of time stating one other expert(different from the four noted above) came to same conclusion that Mr. did but again gave no scientific references to back up that expert’s conclusions.
(2.) The letter also spends a great deal of time explaining the complaint overstated what their analyst, Mr., testified to. The letter says that the complaint alleged their analyst testified that concentrations of 1-1.5 ng/ml of THC will cause impairment, the trial transcripts show that their analyst testified that their analyst stated, "Studies have shown from 1 to 1.5 nanograms per ml of delta-9-THC in a person’s blood can cause a person’s ability to operate a vehicle to be somewhat impaired.."
Response to (2). That quote is correct. But the very next sentence in the transcript says the following:"..What those levels (1-1.5ng/ml) will normally cause is a decreased car handling. That means tracking on the road. They will lose some of that. They’ll have somewhat poor coordination. Their reaction time will be slowed. So their reaction time is essentially increased. It takes longer for them to react and stop the car than if they weren’t on it. They have drowsiness. They have poor psychomotor skills and disorientation of time and space..."
So the 4 sentences that followed completely destroys OSBI’S argument that their analyst, Mr. , only said can cause not will cause
Further OSBI did not address the statements in the Motion in Limine Hearing where their expert gave proffered testimony so the Trial Judge could determine if he would allow any marijuana evidence into trial. Perhaps they avoided the transcripts of the Motion Hearing because Mr. also says 1-1.5 ng/ml will impair...
On page 9 of the Motion in Limine Hearing transcript Mr. says: "..It’s going to be my opinion that all the studies that I’ve read and the training that I’ve had, concentrations that we found in Mr's blood, which is 1.1 nanograms per ml of blood, is significant to cause a person’s ability to be some what impaired operating a motor vehicle. Concentrations of 1-1.5, the studies have shown, will impair a person’s ability to drive a car to different extent on different individuals.
So again these statement of Motion in Limine Hearing completely destroys OSBI’S argument that their analyst, Mr. , only said can cause not will cause. In this case will impair.
. In a concluding paragraph the letter says, " As I mentioned above, we have conducted a preliminary review of documentation and have determined from that review that their is scientific data to support our analyst testimony..."
The letter states that OSBI has determined that there is scientific data to support their analyst testimony but they did not produce one word of evidence to support Mr. testimony.
The three challenges in the Application for Post Conviction Relief and the complaint were that there was no evidence to support Mr. statements that:
1. 1-1.5 ng/ml of THC causes driver impairment,
2. That THC cannot be detected in the blood within 4 to 6 hours,
3. And that he could tell with "scientific certainty" that the level of THC was higher one hour before blood was drawn without knowing the time THC was ingested and without knowing the amount of THC ingested.
These challenges still stand. After presenting 3 pages of arguments OSBI did not present one word of evidence from their 4 experts or their studies to support Mr. statements or refute the statements the Petitioner provided from studies that disagree with Mr. statements.
WHEREFORE, The Petitioner respectfully XXXXX XXXXX Court see the information in the letter from OSBI to ASCLD/LAB as a desperate attempt by OSBI to help Mr. but provided no evidence to do so.
Thank you for your response.There are some typos throughout, but I expect that you will correct these prior to sending the response.defends the testimony of Mr. as being based on scientific studies but gave no proof.rather than "but gave no proof" you may want to change this to "but neither referenced any scientific studies nor other objective proof that support the testimony.That would be does 1-1.5 ng/ml of THC in a persons blood cause driver impairment? This question was not asked of the experts nor did they quote from any of their reference books anything to support this statement made by Mr. .After the ? This was the question that Mr. was asked at trial and to which he answered affirmatively. (You may want to add here that he stated at trial that he based his decision on scientific studiesYet, this questions was not asked . . . . Great argument based on the transcripts.The letter states that OSBI has determined that there is scientific data to support their analyst testimony but they did not produce one word of evidence to support Mr. testimony.You may want to change the second reference to "support that testimony." Otherwise, it's a unclear. their 4 experts or their studies to support Mr. statements or refute the statements the Petitioner provided from studies that disagree with Mr. statementsIf the experts are not named, you can refer to them here as "their four phantom experts or purported studies." Also, before the Wherefore you may want to mention that it also supports the ineffective assistance of counsel claim because counsel never requested a Daubert hearing and at the motion in limine did not ask on which studies the expert relied for his conclusion. It is clear now that no such studies exist and the state's expert's testimony could have been successfully challenged on it's lack of scientific basis.
A couple of questions just came to mind.
Since OSBI completed this investigation on their on expert and it appears to be a deliberate coverup, what do you think think an AG investigation would do to the director who signed the letter in this investigation if in fact the defendant filed a complaint against the expert and the director who signed the letter?
Also OSBI stressed a lot that their expert used the term can cause impairment, not will cause impairment, but it turns out he use the term will cause impairment much more often than he use can cause impairment in the hearing and trial. (He actually only used "can cause" in the one sentence they quoted) Again, how do you think an AG investigation would view this since we have outlined it very clearly in the response?
Thanks for your response but what does a person have to do for AG to do something? The agent had no studies to support what he was saying. He repeatedly lied under oath. With 20 years of experience he clearly knew he was lying. I just want to be clear. It sounds like you are saying even if a complaint was made to AG nothing would happen. Is my understanding correct?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).