Interesting. In California DWI and driving with a blood alcohol level above 0.08% (formerly 0.1%), called DUI, are separate offenses. I was on a jury in which the defendant was charged with both. The cops said he had ignored their red light behind him for a couple of blocks. He didn't pass their walk-along-this-line test, but he passed the others. His BAC tested at 0.1% by the urine method which was the limit at that time. The defense had a former police lab employee testify. I asked him what was the uncertainty in the a measurment (in CA a juror can ask a question by writing it out and giving it the judge who passes it to whichever lawyer he thinks appropriate)? He said it was 0.01% So on the grounds that 0.099 to 0.101 was not above 0.1 beyond a reasonable doubt, I voted to acquit on the DUI count. But we convicted on the DWI count. I was convinced that if he didn't notice a flashing red light in his rearview mirror for two blocks he wasn't fit to drive. I think you were right to want to convict. Surely he knew he had diabetes and was more susceptible to alcohol. Brent On 5/10/2019 7:54 PM, James Propp wrote:
I've written another essay (a little shorter than usual), which I'll either call A Mathematician in the Jury Box, or, “But how should we define ‘intoxicated’?” or “But how should we define ‘intoxicated’?”, or, A Mathematician in the Jury Box
(I can't decide which is better). See http://mathenchant.org/048-draft2.pdf
Comments are welcome!
Jim _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun