New Jersey
DWI Defense

Contact this New Jersey DWI lawyer now
Quicklink reference:
New Jersey DWI | DWI
FAQs | DWI
Links | Disclaimer
| Client
Testimonials | Sample
Cases | DWI
Lawyer Directory
Cross-Examination |
Attention
Attorneys | What
To Do/Not To Do | DWI Appeals
| DWI Articles |
MV Offenses
Directions
| Hiring A Lawyer |
Justice & Morality | DWI
Terms | Field
Sobriety Testing | Contact
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.
New Jersey DWI | DWI
FAQs | DWI
Links | Disclaimer
| Client
Testimonials | Sample
Cases | DWI
Lawyer Directory
Cross-Examination |
Attention
Attorneys | What
To Do/Not To Do | DWI Appeals
| DWI Articles |
MV Offenses
Directions
| Hiring A Lawyer |
Justice & Morality | DWI
Terms | Field
Sobriety Testing | Contact
Copyright 1998 - 2008. Greggory M. Marootian,
Esq. All Rights Reserved. Anyone may download or print out this page or
any other pages of www.njdwidefense.com for their own use. Commercial
exploitation or plagiarizing the contents of the site is what is expressly
prohibited.