Lab Woes Not Enough to Void Drunk-Driving Cases, Judge Rules

A Ventura County judge on Monday refused to throw out more than 600 disputed drunk-driving cases, despite problems in the county crime lab’s handling of evidence. But Superior Court Judge Steven Z. Perren agreed to allow some of those who have already pleaded guilty or been convicted to contest their cases under certain circumstances.

In his 21-page decision, Perren found no intentional effort to conceal problems with the lab from defendants--namely its lack of certification to handle the blood-alcohol tests.

“The court is not persuaded by a preponderance of evidence that the Ventura County Crime Lab engages in a deliberate and systematic practice of withholding information or in violation of constitutional, statutory or regulatory mandates,” Perren wrote.

A team of defense attorneys had sought dismissal of hundreds of cases brought into question earlier this year after the lab continued testing samples in drunk-driving cases despite failing a state proficiency test by the Department of Health Services. The lab regained its license in May.

The lab, attorneys revealed, was operating in violation of several state laws.

The complex and protracted court battle was centered on the admissibility of those blood, urine and breath tests conducted or overseen by the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department crime lab.

Defense attorneys also alleged that the district attorney had withheld information about problems with the lab’s testing program--information that may have helped win acquittal for some defendants.

On Monday, defense attorney Robert Sandbach, one of the lead attorneys representing the Ventura County defense lawyers, said he is considering appealing the finding.

Prosecutors, however, said they were satisfied with the judge’s decision.

“This office put significant resources into this matter and we are pleased with this outcome, particularly that the court’s finding that the crime lab acted in good faith in the situation giving rise to the defense allegations,” said Senior Deputy Dist. Atty. Pete Kossoris. “We look forward to resolving each of the pending cases on the merits at future proceedings and trial.”

Defense attorneys too found something good in the judge’s ruling, said attorney Louis Samonsky, Jr.

“A lot has been cleared up,” Samonsky said.

Perren has set up criteria for what cases may be reopened, dismissed or sent back to trial, he said. Neither the judge nor the attorneys could say how many cases could meet those criteria.

“My guess is that the weaker the case the more likely it will be dismissed or reopened,” Samonsky said.

Defendants must show that, in light of the lab’s problems, a court could find the evidence from the test results too weak to convict them, Perren said.

In cases awaiting trial, prosecutors who want to use lab evidence against a defendant must show that the equipment used in the test was working properly, that the test was administered properly and that the person who did the test was qualified, the judge said.