Forensic Quiz

Hunter said:
What is this? The set of The Simpsons? (JK, but it is weird)
Click to expand...
Why yes, it is a Simpsons reference ;)
Hunter said:
Tell the jury that he simply wasn't drunk enough. I'm guessing Barny is a big guy, and since he's a regualr customer at Moe's, it's probably going to be difficult for him to get hammered. Maybe the victim was on his bad side? Owed money? Drugs?
Click to expand...

At 0.140, Barney was already almost double the legal limit of 0.080 where it is assumed everyone is impaired to drive.

As far as the other possible avenues you were exploring, let's assume Barney didn't know the victim, and there was no debt/drugs involved.
 
Forensics_Guy said:
VManso said:
I would show him a chart showing him the Blood alcohol in terms of milligrams per 100 ml and percentage by weight over a period of hours.
Click to expand...

OK. So let's say you have such a chart. What assumptions are you making before you even show the chart?
Click to expand...


This delves into the field of relativity so I'm just going to take a stab at it : I would assume the higher his blood alcohol concentration, the greater his chances are of having a crash.
 
VManso said:
This delves into the field of relativity so I'm just going to take a stab at it : I would assume the higher his blood alcohol concentration, the greater his chances are of having a crash.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with relativity. Before you use that chart, you have to make some assumptions about Barney's drinking history before you can "back calculate" what his BAC was at an earlier time.
 
We don't know how much of that whiskey he had when he was discovered at home drinking it. Also, he had over two hours between the time of the accident and his blood being drawn. I am not familiar with the rate alcohol burns up, but it might be hard to judge his alcohol content at the time of the hit and run.
 
I think we are getting of track here. It doesn't matter what Barney's prior drinking history is (as in he drinks every night/has a high "tolerance" etc.). You do not have to prove Barney is impaired. The local jurisdiction has a law that says he IS impaired regardless or chronic tolerance, or any other factors, at or above a 0.08 g/100 ml.

The prosecutor wants to know what alcohol concentration (g/100ml) Barney was at the time of the accident.
 
Allowing for oxidation and excretion, I would say, that , at the time of the crash , Barney's alcohol concentration was .15 g /100 ml.
 
Dynamo1 said:
We don't know how much of that whiskey he had when he was discovered at home drinking it. Also, he had over two hours between the time of the accident and his blood being drawn. I am not familiar with the rate alcohol burns up, but it might be hard to judge his alcohol content at the time of the hit and run.
Click to expand...

This post basically nails it on the head. We don't know how much contribution to the measured 0.140 g/100 ml Barney's drinking at played. So taking that into consideration, if asked on the stand by a prosecutor one could either say that because of the time gap it is impossible to perform a retrograde extrapolation. But if pressed, as prosecutors sometimes do, and if they have a friend who is a judge who compels you to answer, I would have to answer the following way:

At a maximum Barney might have consumed no alcohol at home. Giving him two hours of elimination between the accident and the blood draw. Using an upper elimination rate of 0.030 g/100 ml per hour, Barney could have been as high as 0.200 g/ 100ml. (0.140 + 2*0.03)

At a minimun Barney might have had no alcohol in his system at the time of the accident, and all of the alcohol measured at the time of the draw might have been consumed when he reached home.

So a reported range of anywhere from 0.00 - 0.20 would be my best estimate if forced on the stand to answer.
 
Forensic Quiz #4 - The Motorcycle

A motorcyclist is killed in a collision when it hits a car broadside around midnight. The automobile driver is injured from the motorcycle hitting his door, but lives.

The family of the motorcyclist insists that the car driver is at fault, because the car pulled out in front of the motorcyclist who had the right of way.

The car driver insists that the motorcycle was going excessively fast, and did not have it's headlamps on.

There were no other witnesses, there are no skid marks leading up to the accident, and it isn't possible to tell how fast the motorcycle was going based on the damage sustained to both vehicles.
 
I've heard of the term before. Hey it's the end of the year, i'm cramming. :lol: I'll give you the meaning.

Forensic Biomechanics explains the role of biomechanics, the study of the mechanics of the living body, and the forces acted upon it, in accident and injury cases.

Yes we talked about this near the middle of the year, i remember. *looks in my books* Motorcycle Accident Reconstruction and Litigation. Ooo just what i need. But alas, Forensic Guy hasn't heard about it.

When there are no witnesses, does that include video footage? Maybe the collision happened outside of a bank or something of the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top