New Jersey DWI Lawyer
 

New Jersey DWI Lawyer Greggory M. Marootian, Esq.

Experienced Professionals Giving You the Facts and Restoring Your Integrity

new jersey dwi lawyer  

30 West Mount Pleasant Avenue
Livingston, NJ 07039
Office: 973.994.3732
Cell: 201.404.8990
Email

  

New Jersey DWI Home

NJ DWI Law

NJ DWI Procedure

NJ DWI Law Summary

NJ DWI Blog

NJ DWI Frequently Asked Questions

Tips On Hiring a NJ DWI Lawyer

Consumer Guide to NJ DWI Lawyers

DWI Question & Answer Forum

NJ DWI Knowledge Quiz

NJ DWI Common Myths

What to do When Stopped for DWI

Appeals & Post-Conviction Relief

NJ DWI Articles:

NJ DWI Sample Cases

Voice Your Opinion on NJ DWI Law

Recent DWI Changes & Developments

State v. Chun - The Alcotest is
Approved By The NJ Supreme Court

Sample NJ DWI Cross Examination

DWI Lawyers Outside of NJ

NJ DWI Links

Common NJ DWI Terms

Don't Stress

Emotional Causes of Alcohol Abuse

Commentary: NJ DWI Laws are Unfair

Inspiring Words on Justice &  Morality

Client Testimonials

Speaking Engagements

Client Resource Center

Contact Us

Map & Directions

 


State v. Chun - The Alcotest Is Approved By The N.J. Supreme Court
 

On March 17, 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court (the highest New Jersey Court) decided the case of State v. Jane H. Chun. The Chun-Defendants challenged the reliability of the “Alcotest”, a breath-testing machine that replaced the “Breathalyzer.” The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed with the general defense thrust, and found that the technology is generally reliable. The Supreme Court relied in part, on the “Special Master”, Judge King’s findings. The Court did however, impose a number of procedural safeguards.

I intentionally did not include my clients in the Chun litigation. My logic was this: a challenge the general reliability of the machine would be unsuccessful, and the only benefit in the end would be to the State and not the defense. The benefit(s) to the State as I reasoned would be: 1. establishing the reliability of the machine, and 2. ironing out the machine quirks and defense issues. My reasoning was that the defense was better off operating in a state of ambiguity – in other words, the State needed the clarity, not the defense. I achieved great success in the Alcotest cases I intentionally kept at the lower court levels. I could have brought my clients into the fold of the Chun litigation, but believed that they would be better served by remaining in the lower courts. The success I had in Alcotest cases included an outright dismissal, suppression of Alcotest readings, and recently an acquittal after trial in a Union County Municipal Court.

The Chun litigation served to bolster the State’s use of the Alcotest, and clarified for the State, the defense challenges. My opinion is that the defense (i.e. the defendants) would have been in a better posture operating in a state of ambiguity because the burden of proof rests squarely on the State – the defense has no burden of proof.

This is not to say that there are no defenses to Alcotest cases. Through a careful reading of Chun, and a creative and bold application of the Court’s ruling, successful challenges are possible. I look forward to the challenges that lie ahead and remain committed to my representation of DWI defendants.
 
 

Call on  New Jersey DWI lawyer, Greggory M. Marootian when you need
experienced  professionals to give you the facts, and restore your integrity.
 

 

© Copyright 1999/Present. Greggory M. Marootian, Esq.  All rights Reserved. The information in this website is provided for informational purposes on New Jersey DWI only; it is not as legal advice. Any questions about the law or your rights and obligations should be reviewed by legal counsel engaged by you and provided with your specific fact situation.

Another SEO web promotion and design by AJIS.com