Findings from “Chun”

On February 14, 2007, Special Master, Judge Michael P. King, P.J.A.D. issued his findings on the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C. These findings were remarkably good. As can be seen, the defense team did an extraordinary job for all New Jersey drivers’ legal rights. Many defendants who were arrested and tested on this new machine after 2005 will be affected by the findings. Readings may have been 6.58% overestimated, which can be adjusted downward. If you think your case is affected by this, you should contact me immediately. Please contact the New Jersey DWI attorney Bartholomew Baffuto, Esq. to find out your options on an Alcotest 7110 case. You may be eligible to go back to your municipal court and try your case or file an application to re-open a previous case. Do not waste this great opportunity. Check Convicted? How To Reverse It or call 732-292-9275 immediately.

1. The breath temperature should be measured and controlled for by a breath temperature sensor. A sensor should be added to every Alcotest 7110.

2. Until the breath temperature sensor feature is added, the defendant’s final breath test readings should be reduced downward by 6.58%.

3. If the defendant is a female who is over the age of 60 years old, the minimum volume required for a breath sample should be 1.2 liters.

4. A tolerance range should be tightened. There are four readings yielded by an Alcotest 7110. All four readings should fall within a range of plus or minus 0.005 or plus or minus 5% of the mean average of four readings, whichever is greater.

5. Construction of a centralized database of digital information stored by all Alcotest 7110s in New Jersey is strongly recommended.

6. The trial judge should have discretion to admit into evidence as State business records or government documents all foundational documents recording the condition of an Alcotest 7110, provided those documents were disclosed in discovery.

7. The protocols to collect breath samples should strictly be followed, and the breath test operator’s credentials by should be produced at trial.

On March 17, 2008 the New Jersey Supreme Court published its final decision. The decision in State v. Chun, et al. can be found here (please place the attached PDF file).

The decision opens up various defenses, but only for experienced and knowledgeable defense counsel.

I created the defense strategy for the defense team in the State v. Chun, et al. litigation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹The figure is as of May 29, 2007. Win rate is defined as the number of clients not convicted for DWI divided by the total number of clients who were charged with DWI. The clients are those who retained this office after 2005. Each case varies. Under any circumstance, we do NOT guarantee a successful outcome in any individual case.

²The figure is as of May 29, 2007. Win rate is defined as the number of clients not convicted for No Automobile Liability Insurance divided by the total number of clients who were charged with said charge. The clients are those who retained this office after 2000. Each case varies. Under any circumstance, we do NOT guarantee a successful outcome in any individual case.