• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Zinicola Blanch Overand and Hart

Fairfax Co. Criminal Attorneys

  • Our Firm
  • Practice Areas
    • Reckless Driving and Speeding
    • DWI Offenses
    • Driver’s License Offenses
    • Hit and Run
    • Possession of Marijuana
    • Felony Drug Possession / Distribution
    • Larceny and Theft Offenses
    • Violent Crimes
    • Sex Offenses
    • Homicide
    • Criminal Appeals
    • Financial Crimes
    • Expungements
    • Family Law
  • Attorneys
    • Todd M. Zinicola
    • Patrick M. Blanch
    • Jeffrey G. Overand
    • Carly J. Hart
  • News & Information
  • Make a Payment
  • Find Info On Your Case
  • Testimonials
  • Contact Us

Fairfax

4085 Chain Bridge Road, #302
Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Phone: (703) 934-8580
Fax: (703) 934-8583

Info ZBO / March 13, 2013

Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth

breathalyzer
Photo Credit: West Midlands Police via Flickr cc

Virginia Appeals Court rules that Commonwealth need not prove accuracy of blood alcohol tests

The Virginia Court of Appeals ruled recently in Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth that trial judges in DWI cases must admit into evidence the results of blood alcohol breath tests even when the Commonwealth has offered no other evidence to establish that the breath test machine is functioning accurately. This has been a bone of contention since 2009, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors must produce live witnesses who can be cross-examined by the defense when the prosecution uses forensic science to convict a defendant.

The Virginia Code makes documents proving the maintenance and accuracy of breath test machines admissible in a prosecution, but it was also unclear whether those documents would violate the constitutional right of defendants to confront the witnesses against them, since the machines were maintained and calibrated by state employees.

The Court of Appeals has rendered those questions moot by ruling that the Virginia Code creates a presumption that breath test devices are accurate and that a defendant must introduce evidence to rebut that presumption.

The Court of Appeals did not explain how this presumption of accuracy and the accompanying burden-shifting to the defendant is constitutional in light of Yap v. Commonwealth and a long line of Virginia cases which hold that presumptions in prosecutions violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial by essentially requiring them to prove their innocence.

We expect the Supreme Court of Virginia to weigh in on this issue within the next year, as the opinion of the Court of Appeals seems to contradict – at least in theory – several well-established legal precedents.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Reader Interactions

Primary Sidebar

Request Free Consultation

Recent Posts

  • Virginia considering changes to the Court of Appeals
  • Virginia requires video recording of police interrogations
  • Virginia now allows a restricted license for drivers who refuse alcohol testing
  • Improved DWI restricted licenses available in Virginia as of July 1, 2020
  • Child Custody Considerations During COVID19

Footer

Contact Us

4085 Chain Bridge Road, #302
Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Phone: (703) 934-8580
Fax: (703) 934-8583

Zinicola Blanch Overand & Hart

We hope that you will call us, send us an e-mail, or fill out our online form from any page on this website to set up a free appointment to discuss your case, in our offices or over the phone.
contactus@zbohlaw.com

 

Every case is different.  Past results are not a prediction of what will happen in any particular case.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone

Copyright © 2021 · Zinicola Blanch Overand & Hart · All Rights Reserved