The following is a transcript from a real DUI case cross-exam in California handled by attorney Denise Lyons. If you are in need of an experienced DUI defense lawyer to handle your case in Los Angeles, call the attorneys at the California Legal Team. All initial consultations are free of charge.
California DUI Transcript
Page 1
Male: The third one being the hand pat and the fourth one being a finger count, and for purposes of this hypothetical, let’s assume that she exhibited signs of being under the influence on all four of those tests.
LAWYER: Same objection to all of that information.
Male: Understood; record notes and it’s overruled.
Male: Did you hear that?
Denise Lyons: Yes, I did.
Male: Okay. Let’s assume, as you testified, that there was a blood test that was taken at 9:00 or blood sample, I’m sorry, blood sample that was taken at 9:42 and that the results of that were .08 blood alcohol content. Now is there anything else that would be helpful in making a retrograde analysis?
Denise Lyons: No, I think I have everything I need.
Male: You need a few minutes?
Denise Lyons: Yes. Okay.
Male: Okay, Ms. Lyons, what do those – what do your calculations tell you?
Denise Lyons: Well, based on the assumption, the hypothetical that was given, and the certain assumptions that need to be made, one being that the individual was in good health and that the alcohol was fully absorbed at the time of driving, extrapolating the .08 that was obtained from the blood sample drawn at 9:42 back to a drive time at 8:00, they would be – the alcohol concentration at 8:00 would be a .105.
Male: .105?
Denise Lyons: Yes.
Male: Now, .105 is higher than a .08. Yes.
Denise Lyons: Yes, it is.
Male: How long after the driving behavior was the blood sample taken?
Denise Lyons: One hour and 42 minutes.
Male: All right, would that decrease from a .105 to .08 be consistent with your experience with elimination?
Denise Lyons: Yes.
Male: Are the facts that have been provided consistent with someone who’s under the influence of alcohol?
Denise Lyons: Yes.
Male: Do you have an opinion, a professional opinion, based on your training and experience as to whether or not the defendant was under the influence at the time that she was driving the car on April 11, 2007?
Denise Lyons: Based on the hypothetical that the – that was the – I’m sorry. Based on the items that were submitted to me and the observation by the officer, also combined with the blood alcohol concentration, I would say that the person was impaired for the purposes of safely operating a motor vehicle.
Male: Thank you, Ms. Lyons. That’s all the questions I have.
Male: All right. Cross-examination.
LAWYER: One minute ____ ____, Your Honor. You’ll probably be handling this. Good morning, Ms. Lyons.
Denise Lyons: Good morning.
LAWYER: Are you familiar with Dr. Kurt M. Dubowski?
Denise Lyons: I haven’t met him. I’ve read some of his writings, yes.
LAWYER: Are you professionally acquainted with his writings in the field of blood alcohol and driving?
Denise Lyons: I’ve read some of his articles, yes.
LAWYER: Have you relied on any of his articles?
Denise Lyons: Yes.
LAWYER: Is he considered to be a respectable authority in the field of blood alcohol and driving?
Denise Lyons: I would say so.
LAWYER: What about Dr. A. W. Jones? Have you read any of his articles?
Denise Lyons: Yes, I have.
LAWYER: And have you relied on his articles?
Denise Lyons: I’ve used them – I would say that I’ve used them to help me form my opinions.
LAWYER: Okay. Let’s talk about qualifications. Is it fair to say that you do not have a Ph.D.?
Denise Lyons: Yeah, that’s fair.
LAWYER: You don’t have an M.D.
Denise Lyons: No.
LAWYER: You don’t have an O.D.
Denise Lyons: No.
LAWYER: Do you have a master’s?
Denise Lyons: No.
LAWYER: What was your four-year degree in?
Denise Lyons: Animal science.
LAWYER: Animal science?
Denise Lyons: Mm-hm.
LAWYER: And what about your studies in four years of animal science had to do with a human being’s ability to drive an automobile?
Denise Lyons: Specifically to drive an automobile, nothing.
LAWYER: And what about your four years of study in animal science had to do with the effects of alcohol on a human being?
Denise Lyons: My four years in college covered a wide variety of things. The animal science major is very, very equivalent to a premed degree, and as far as the physiology, anatomy, endocrinology systems in the body, I think that I have – it provided a lot of background knowledge to make those – to understand the groundwork for understanding how alcohol is processed in the body. Certainly alcohol metabolism was covered in organic chemistry.
LAWYER: The human body metabolism of alcohol is covered in organic chemistry?
Denise Lyons: No, the chemical pathways, the actual chemical reactions.
LAWYER: How long have you worked at the Ventura County Sheriff’s Crime Lab?
Denise Lyons: Eighteen years.
LAWYER: Where did you work before that?
Denise Lyons: Before that, I worked at Roche Biomedical Laboratories in Sacramento.
LAWYER: And what of your duties at that laboratory had to do with driving or alcohol consumption other than attending Christmas parties?
Male: Judge, I object to the nature of the last remark.
LAWYER: I’ll withdraw the last comment.
Denise Lyons: Would you please repeat the question?
LAWYER: Without the last comment, I’d be happy to. What of your duties at that job had anything to do with driving an automobile and/or the absorption, elimination of alcohol or the effects of alcohol on the abilities to drive?
Denise Lyons: My duties at that job were performing analysis for forensic urine drug screening which covered – which is background for all of the analysis that I do at this time.
LAWYER: Your Honor, that’s non-responsive. Motion to strike.
Male: It’s declined.
LAWYER: At – what was that employment again? What was it called?
Denise Lyons: Roche Biomedical Laboratories.
LAWYER: Okay, we’ll just call it medical laboratories ’cause your voice is soft and I couldn’t hear the words loud enough to understand what you were saying. Did your job duties include determining whether or not somebody was safe to drive an automobile?
Denise Lyons: No.
LAWYER: Did they include determining whether or not a person’s ability to drive an automobile were affected by the amount of alcohol that they consumed?
Denise Lyons: No, it did not.
LAWYER: So when I asked you what of that job had anything to do with the ability to drive a motor vehicle as it would be affected by consumption of alcohol, your answer should have been “nothing.”
Male: Objection, Your Honor. He – she needs to answer the question and relevance. This is 19 plus _____.
[Crosstalk]
Male: All right, sir. As I told Mr. Genis, I just want grounds for the objection on both sides. I want the same rules to apply for both counsel.
Male: Relevance.
Male: You can rephrase it.
LAWYER: Is it true that your job there at that laboratory had nothing to do with a person’s ability to drive a motor vehicle or the effects of alcohol thereon?
Denise Lyons: My job had nothing to do with a person’s ability to drive a motor vehicle.
LAWYER: Okay, and you’re not a biased witness, are you?
Denise Lyons: No.
LAWYER: Okay, and that’s why you were able to answer that question right the first time, right?
Denise Lyons: I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you’re asking me.
LAWYER: How much of your time at the Ventura County Sheriff’s Crime Lab has been spent in the blood alcohol section?
Denise Lyons: Approximately 50 percent of my time since 19 – I’m sorry – since 2004.
LAWYER: Okay, you’re a salaried employee, right?
Denise Lyons: Yes, I am.
LAWYER: You get a salary and you get a compensation package which includes vacation, medical, dental, retirement, pension. All of that sort of stuff is all lumped into your contract, right?
Denise Lyons: Yes.
LAWYER: Okay, and have you ever sat down and added up the value of all those things to figure out what the true hourly pay is?
Denise Lyons: No.
LAWYER: Okay. Now, you know the difference between a professional athlete and an amateur athlete?
Male: Objection. Relevance.
LAWYER: It’s foundational.
Male: All right. It’s overruled.
Denise Lyons: No.
LAWYER: An amateur is somebody who doesn’t get paid for what they’re doing. You’re not here for the love of God, are you, today?
Male: Objection. Improper question.
Male: It’s overruled.
Denise Lyons: I’m –
LAWYER: You’re on the clock right now, aren’t you?
Denise Lyons: Yes, I am.
LAWYER: You’re getting paid for being here, aren’t you?
Denise Lyons: I’m getting paid my normal salary.
LAWYER: How many times have you testified in court?
Denise Lyons: Approximately 175 times.
LAWYER: How many of those times was the first lawyer to question you a representative of the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office?
Denise Lyons: I believe all of them.
LAWYER: How many times have you taken the stand to testify where the first lawyer to question you was a defense attorney from either the private bar or –?
Male: Hold on a second.
Male: Your Honor, it probably regards to the earthquake training, if we want to take a recess. It should be over in about ten.
Male: Your attention please.
Male: Okay, one second.
Male: Exercise, exercise, exercise. The Golden Guardian Exercise is commencing at this time. A simulated earthquake is now in Southern California. This is only an exercise. Please remain at your work areas and conduct business normally.
The Golden Guardian Exercise is commencing at this time. A simulated earthquake is now hitting Southern California.
Male: I’d like to simulate those and get ______.
Male: This is only an exercise. Please remain at your work area and conduct business normally.
Male: All right, I think what we’ll do to wait for the hum in the background – it sounds like we’re all on a battleship here or something. We’ll wait for that to stay and take a recess for about 15 minutes at this time. How about until 20 after 10:00?
Remember the court’s admonition not to talk about the case or form or express any opinion until you’ve heard all the evidence and begun your deliberations. Again, feel free to go to the cafeteria. Come back with drinks if you wish to. We’ll see you back here at 20 after 2:00 – 20 after 10:00.
Male: Judge, did you say 20 after?
Male: Twenty after, yes. You can step down, Ms. Lyons, if you want.
Denise Lyons: Okay.
Male: Your attention, please. The simulate earthquake has now –
Male: Remain seated and come to order. Court is again in session.
Male: All right. We can go back on the record in the matter of People v. Mary D. Selznick. Our jury is present with the alternate. Defendant is present with both counsel. People are present. Mr. Genis, you can pick up where you left off.
LAWYER: Unfortunately, I’m gonna have to try – since my computer rebooted itself during the earthquake break, 75 percent of the programs I had open are closed. Okay, so Your Honor, can you refresh my recollection as to the last question that I had because my computer marking –
Male: I’d have to have you play it back, have the judicial system play it back. How easy is that, Ms. Lopez?
LAWYER: Just the last question.
Female: I’d have to stop recording and –
LAWYER: No, don’t do that. I’ll figure it out. What’s – oh, right, right. So you’ve testified 175 times for the prosecution and zero times for the defense, right?
Denise Lyons: I’ve – I’m sorry. I’ve –
LAWYER: The _____ ____ is okay.
Male: Objection, Your Honor.
Male: All right, you can answer the question now.
Denise Lyons: I’ve testified approximately 175 times and of those times, I may have been subpoenaed by the D.A.’s office.
LAWYER: Don’t tell me you’re under subpoena any of those times if you know that you weren’t.
Denise Lyons: I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you were just saying?
LAWYER: How many times have you received a subpoena from a defense attorney to come to court to testify? To come to court to testify, not the Department of Motor Vehicles?
Denise Lyons: From a defense attorney?
LAWYER: Yeah.
Denise Lyons: A handful.
[Crosstalk]
LAWYER: Do you know?
Denise Lyons: No, I’ve actually received – I don’t know how many. I haven’t tracked it, but I have received subpoenas from defense attorneys, from private attorneys.
LAWYER: And how many of those times did you actually come to court and testify for that defense attorney?
Denise Lyons: I don’t think that I have. I don’t recall.
LAWYER: All right, so are you aware of the process whereby your lab would make a motion to quash those subpoenas because it’s a lab that exists for the benefit of the prosecution and it doesn’t like to give away its resources?
Male: Objection. Relevance.
Male: Sustained.
LAWYER: Okay, but just so that we’re clear, you have testified for the prosecution 175 times, right?
Male: Objection. Asked and answered.
LAWYER: Your Honor, proper objection on cross.
Male: All right. It sounds like it’s a preliminary lead-up question. Overruled.
LAWYER: And you’ve testified for the defense zero times in spite of the fact that you’ve been subpoenaed by the defense. You’ve managed to avoid doing stuff.
Male: Objection, last statement.
Male: Sustained as to like and portion.
LAWYER: I’ll rephrase. I’ll rephrase. You’ve been subpoenaed by the defense. You said that, right?
Denise Lyons: Yes.
LAWYER: You’ve never testified for the defense. You also said that, right?
Denise Lyons: I actually don’t recall if I have or not. I know that there were several case – I don’t recall. It’s been 18 years that I’ve worked in the laboratory.
I receive hundreds of subpoenas that I don’t go to court on. I don’t track how many I’ve testified on, for which side or that, and I’m not here as a representative for either side. I’m here because I’ve been subpoenaed to come to court and testify.
LAWYER: And you know what you’re gonna testify to before you come to court, obviously, don’t you?
Denise Lyons: I have the facts of the case and I have my opinion, so I have an idea.
LAWYER: Well, okay, how many times have you testified in a breath test case, breath alone?
Denise Lyons: I think maybe four.
LAWYER: Four?
Denise Lyons: Four or five.
LAWYER: How many of those cases were there both a preliminary alcohol screening test and a evidential test?
Denise Lyons: I don’t recall.
LAWYER: Is there something about cross-examination that causes you to suffer from memory lapse?
Denise Lyons: No.
LAWYER: How many times did you say “I don’t recall” when you were being questioned by the prosecutor?
District Attorney: Objection.
Judge: Grounds.
District Attorney: It’s an improper question.
Judge: Well, it’s asking the witness to summarize a portion of her direct testimony. I’m gonna sustain it, Mr. Genis.
LAWYER: I think her demeanor speaks for itself though. We’ll go to the next question then. Are you a – have you ever personally conducted any drinking studies?
Denise Lyons: I’ve been involved in drinking studies.
LAWYER: Please listen to my question. Have you personally conducted? I didn’t ask you if you’d participated. If I’d wanted to know if you’d participated, I would have asked you that directly.
District Attorney: Objection, Your Honor. It’s badgering.
LAWYER: Please listen to the question.
Judge: All right, sustained. Go ahead, Mr. Genis.
LAWYER: Okay, is English your first language?
District Attorney: Objection.
Judge: Overruled.
Denise Lyons: Yes, English is my first language.
LAWYER: And I’m speaking the language that you have a good working knowledge and understanding of?
Denise Lyons: Yes.
LAWYER: Okay. Please listen to my question. If you don’t understand my question, please ask me to rephrase it and I’ll be happy to do so. Tell me, how many drinking studies have you personally conducted? Would you like me to define the word “conducted” for you?
Denise Lyons: No, I would like you to give me an opportunity to recall.
LAWYER: Are there that many?
Male: All right, one second. Give her a minute. Go ahead, ma’am.
Denise Lyons: There were – are three drinking studies that were conducted by the laboratory –
LAWYER: So you didn’t conduct them.
Denise Lyons: – that I co-conducted. They were conducted by – as a group by the people in the laboratory.
LAWYER: Really? Who co-conducted them?
Denise Lyons: Janet Anderson-Seaquist, Matt Berger, Eileen Boyd.
LAWYER: That’s almost everybody in your laboratory, isn’t it?
Denise Lyons: It’s almost everybody that works in the alcohol section.
LAWYER: Okay, so who was in charge of those studies?
Denise Lyons: That would be the supervisor of the section, Janet Anderson-Seaquist.
LAWYER: Okay. In fact, you are not a forensic alcohol supervisor, are you?
Denise Lyons: I was qualified by the State of California as a forensic alcohol supervisor.
LAWYER: When?
Denise Lyons: 2004.
LAWYER: Okay, and how many studies have you participated or conducted between 2004 and 2008?
Denise Lyons: I have not conducted any studies.
LAWYER: Okay. So the correct answer to my original question – “How many forensic – how many drinking driver studies have you personally conducted?” – the answer would be those are conducted by forensic alcohol supervisors and I was only one as of 2004 and I’ve never personally conducted a study. I’ve only participated. That would be your correct answer, right?
Denise Lyons: I’m not sure. The question is so complex I’m not quite sure. It’s just such a compound question.
LAWYER: Oh, now you’re a lawyer and you’re making objections?
District Attorney: Objection.
Judge: All right. Sustained, Mr. Genis. It’s argumentative.
LAWYER: Is there something that you find fundamentally distasteful about objectively answering questions for both sides as opposed to one side?
Denise Lyons: No.
LAWYER: And that’s why you’re gonna go ahead and answer my questions freely and easily without combating me, right?
Denise Lyons: I am attempting to answer your questions freely and easily.
LAWYER: To the best of your ability.
Denise Lyons: To the best of my ability.
[Crosstalk]
LAWYER: _____ _____ biased, right?
Denise Lyons: I have no bias.
LAWYER: None at all.
Denise Lyons: No.
LAWYER: Okay. How many times have you testified in open court that based upon the blood alcohol determinations the citizen accused was not, in your opinion, driving under the influence?
Denise Lyons: None.
Male: Objection. Relevance.
Male: Overruled.
LAWYER: The answer “none” will stand, right?
Male: Overruled.
Denise Lyons: None.
LAWYER: What’s your answer?
Denise Lyons: None.
LAWYER: Does “none” mean zero?
Denise Lyons: Yes, it does.
LAWYER: So you’ve never done that, have you?
Denise Lyons: That would be none.
LAWYER: And that’s because you’re not biased, right?
Denise Lyons: No. It’s because I haven’t been called to court to testify on any cases that that was my opinion on.
LAWYER: Well, you might have been. You’ve had some defense subpoenas but you never actually got dragged into court for some reason or another, right?
Denise Lyons: I was not called to court, as is the case with 75 percent of the subpoenas I receive.
LAWYER: You did receive the subpoena. That means you were called to court but someone found a reason to keep you out, right?
Denise Lyons: No, that’s –
Male: Objection, Your Honor. That’s speculative.
Male: All right, sustained.
LAWYER: Did you have to take a test to become a forensic alcohol analyst?
Denise Lyons: Yes.
LAWYER: And was that test sent back to you without having to make corrections or clarifications?
Denise Lyons: I believe so.
LAWYER: Have you ever been to the Cavanaugh DUI School in California?
