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.
|