County Prosecutors to Stay on Lab Case

A request by defense attorneys to throw county prosecutors off the massive litigation involving hundreds of drunk-driving cases was denied Tuesday by a Ventura County Superior Court judge who found no evidence of misconduct.

In a lengthy written ruling, Judge Steven Z. Perren found that no conflict of interest existed that would undermine the defendants’ rights to a fair trial--the legal standard for recusal.

“While this court is mindful that public confidence in the criminal justice system is a major concern, appearances of impropriety, standing alone, will not give rise to recusal,” the judge wrote.

Defense attorneys had sought the recusal of prosecutors on the grounds that they allegedly knew the Ventura County crime laboratory had violated state law and withheld information about the lab’s licensing troubles.

One defense attorney argued that letting the district attorney’s office handle the disputed drunk-driving cases would be “like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.”

But based on court testimony, Perren ruled that no evidence supports the claim that prosecutors knew the lab was operating without a license.

It was not until an April 8 meeting--five months after the lab’s sole forensic alcohol supervisor, Norm Fort, retired--that prosecutors were made aware of the situation, Perren concluded.

The judge’s ruling also delved into some of the disputed issues in the litigation, which recently swelled to more than 620 drunk-driving cases.

Perren said that the Ventura County Sheriff Department’s failure to qualify more than one forensic alcohol supervisor to oversee breath tests at the lab “precipitated a crises situation” after Fort’s retirement in November.

Defense attorneys and prosecutors have quibbled over whether the lab’s license was lost, lapsed or not renewed in the months after Fort’s departure.

The dispute cuts to the heart of the litigation and was addressed by the judge in a footnote to his written ruling.

“It seems clear that the license was not lost nor did it lapse,” Perren wrote. “The lab was not in compliance with Title 17 for failure to have a Forensic Alcohol Supervisor in its employ as required,” by law.