By Danielle Eden C. Silva and Hannah Poploski
Two Experts Testify in Morning Session of DUI Trial
By Danielle Eden C. Silva
In Department 14, the DUI case for Larra Williams resumed with two experts appearing on the stand.
The People called Catherine Cook, a criminalist from the California Department of Justice, to the stand. Her work focuses on studying physical evidence and testing for drugs in blood or urine. She had worked nine years in private service before joining the Department of Justice in April 2012.
Ms. Cook had testified in court before as an analyst and as an expert on people under the influence. She retrieved most of her information on methamphetamine while driving through literature. Ms. Cook also shared her understanding of polydrug use, the usage of more than one drug. She had also been used as an expert on polydrug use with alcohol and meth.
The defense asked about Ms. Cook’s experience with finding alcohol in blood or urine. She responded her experience doing that was in the private sector, but she had testified on it and attended seminars on the topic. She had testified around 60 times before as a drug expert, with 10 to 15 of those testimonies being on polydrug use in bodily fluids, drugs in the central nervous system, the impairment effects of alcohol and meth on the human body, and in polydrug use overall.
A report from November 2016 signed by Ms. Cook was presented to the court. The report stated the defendant had 190 nanograms/milliliter of meth and less than 25 nanograms/milliliter of amphetamine 
in her system, the latter a possible byproduct of meth. There was no method to tell when and how the meth was taken. The stimulant could have been in the defendant’s blood from three to four days.
Ms. Cook listed the symptoms of a stimulant and a depressant. A stimulant would create dilated pupils, fidgeting, teeth grinding, and a sped-up perception of time. A depressant would slur speech, slow the pulse, and impair coordination. Sobriety tests help offer evidence for supporting these effects on impairment.
Ms. Cook was offered a hypothetical. A 125-lb woman had internally counted 30 seconds too quickly at 13 seconds, Romberg’s test for balance (closing the eyes while standing), eye tremors, and a fidgety behavior were signs of cognitive impairment. Failure to walk the line and missing a touch to the nose five to six times portrayed physical impairments.
While the hypothetical mentioned the woman admitting to using meth, Ms. Cook stated she would have relied on the evidence and the totality of the event, as the detainee could lie.
She stated multiple drugs can have no effect, some effect, or mixed effects on the user. The level of the drug is not always equal to the level of impairment, as people have different reactions to certain drugs.
In cross-examination, Ms. Cook shared that the blood sample did not note the potency level. Some could build a tolerance through constant use, with the euphoric effects occurring from four to eight hours. The meth’s effects would wear off after eight hours but could still be in the system.
The defense then asked if she had done any studies on sobriety tests performed by sober people. She claimed she did a seminar with police officers where they did sobriety tests on sober people. Ms. Cook did agree that the seminar environment was friendly, but a person pulled over would be more nervous. However, this nervousness is counteracted by taking the person’s pulse three times over time.
The weaving driving pattern was brought up, but Ms. Cook asserted that once over and back inside of the lane could be a sign of impairment. Staying the speed limit, however, was not. Her understanding of driving under a stimulant concerned aggressive driving. Impairment in her mind, however, must be as a result of the totality of the situation.
But taking one step more than instructed was not a sober mistake. People in sobriety tests should be able to perform certain actions like touching the tip of their nose. Ms. Cook had not read any study on sober people taking sobriety tests but impairment should not be seen as on a scale.
The sobriety tests were revealed to look for subconscious effects, and studies only provided low doses of drugs. The studies had these therapeutic doses before doing sobriety tests, as a higher dose could be harmful to the test subject. The small doses didn’t impair their performance.
Ms. Cook was excused. The People rested.
The defense called Jeffery Zender, a private forensic toxicologist, to the stand. He analyzes how meth and alcohol affect motor skills as they correlate to driving a vehicle. He has a clinical license and is qualified for analyzing field sobriety tests. He has testified over 2,000 times as an expert on meth’s effects while driving and on polydrug use.
The court approved Mr. Zender as an expert on the effects of meth and alcohol (but separately) on motor skills needed for driving.
Mr. Zender had been hired by the defense to evaluate the case. While absent when the test was taken, he could review the police report and the video so he focused his opinion on what was presented to him.
Mr. Zender was then given hypotheticals. He stated that if a strong odor of alcohol came from someone and an open container of alcohol was present in the car, then that person must be drinking. Mr. Zender then went into detail on how the horizontal gaze test, something he has studied himself, correlated to a person’s blood alcohol content (BAC). He also noted that alcohol could take two hours to empty out of a person’s system as it is being absorbed, causing the BAC to continue rising.
Field sobriety tests could be influenced by the environment. These tests were provided for the officer to decide whether or not to make an arrest based off of suspicion, not knowing if a person was truly impaired. Because the officer did not know Ms. Williams’ sober behavior, there was no distinction as to whether she was or wasn’t impaired, based on her performance.
The defendant’s performance on the field sobriety tests in the video was pretty good according to Mr. Zender. She may have been nervous and distracted due to the arrest situation. By being under arrest, she may have had a high level of anxiety and a person could be distracted. Sobriety had to be ruled out by performance but she wasn’t in an undistracted environment. This could have affected her abilities in the Romberg’s test, with adrenaline as a stimulant. The sped-up experience of time could not be from alcohol. It could also explain how her pulse went down an hour later – meth would keep her pulse up.
In the cross-examination, Mr. Zender noted dogs in the video barking and the prosecution asked if he took note of whether the tests had been done next to the dogs. Mr. Zender couldn’t say. He also noted he didn’t write about her laughing and joking demeanor.
The court was then excused for lunch.
Witness Testimony Continues in the Afternoon
By Hannah Poploskie
Witness testimony in the case against Larra Williams pertaining to driving under the influence in July of 2016 resumed on Thursday afternoon.
On the witness stand was a scientist called to testify by the defense, represented by Deputy Public Defender Jonathan Opet. The witness has studied for over 30 years the effects of controlled substances on the human body, including indications of being impaired.
The prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Alex Kian, resumed questioning of the witness from the morning. The witness contended that field sobriety tests are not conclusive scientifically to show impairment in an individual. He instead said that the field sobriety tests are a tool for police to evaluate whether there is enough evidence to arrest on suspicion of impairment. The actual performance on the test was said to be subjective.
The field sobriety tests as explained by the witness can indicate impairment, however, other factors could explain the performance on the tests. The other factors varied from personal conditions, environmental conditions, or the location where the test occurred.
Mr. Kian proposed a hypothetical situation where a high level of blood alcohol content is discovered on a blood test, but a subject had little indication of impairment in field sobriety tests. The witness was asked what, in his opinion, this information would lead him to think, and he replied that he would then question the validity of the blood alcohol content test. When it was asked to include the factor of the subject being a career alcoholic, the witness replied he would still question the validity of the test.
The next line of questioning was about the means in which the witness is able to evaluate the level of impairment in relation to field sobriety tests. The witness detailed studies he had done in his career performing the tests on sober subjects and testing how accurate they were in completion. He also read thousands of police reports about how accurate individuals are when completing field sobriety tests. Mr. Kian asked for clarification that those in the police reports were already arrested, which the witness confirmed.
The witness told the court that, through his experience, it is extremely rare to have a person complete the finger to nose test with perfect accuracy. The sober people in the controlled studies completed by the witness, in fact, showed that half of the people studied would have been judged as impaired according to the witness. He also said that those who were in his controlled study of sober individuals also had errors in their tests, and they were not faced with anxiety from being pulled over by the police.
The report that the witness made initially for the public defender’s office was then examined. The original postulation by the witness was that the defendant had higher amphetamine levels in her system and lower methamphetamine levels, which would have indicated ingestion occurred a long time before the defendant was tested. He also contended that the defendant was not impaired in her testing, and the errors in the test could have been caused by other factors.
Mr. Kian then read the toxiocology report that was given to the witness, after his prior report, which showed higher levels of methamphetamine, indicating that the drug was still being processed in her system and was ingested much later than originally thought. The witness was dismissed from questioning.
In his closing statements, Mr. Kian reminded the court of the facts of the case. After Ms. Williams was seen weaving while driving, she was pulled over and asked several times over the course of the field sobriety tests if she had had alcohol. Despite denying this allegation at first, she later admitted to having a drink. After seeing indications of drug usage, the officer then questioned her about the possibility of her being under the influence of drugs also, which she also denied, but then confirmed.
The factors that indicated impairment were shown to the court, including: droopy eyes, bloodshot eyes, missing her nose on the finger to nose test, misjudging 30 seconds of elapsed time, skipping numbers when counting, and having the odor of alcohol. Mr. Kian said that, although her pupils were not dilated which usually is seen in conjunction with methamphetamine usage, a prior witness told the court that that was not also a present indication.
In his closing statements, Mr. Opet explained that Ms. Williams was nervous when pulled over, considering the presence of three officers, one of which was 6’6. This could have explained why she preformed less than perfectly on her tests. The field sobriety test system in general also is one that focuses on perfection and errors rather than how many things were done correctly. She had driven just like she would any other day, and when she got pulled over she was very anxious.
The blood alcohol content was argued as not enough to prove impairment, due to the fact she only had a level of .05 percent and she did not appear impaired on the video. The witnesses called by the prosecution were unable to deny that the field sobriety tests have flaws in proving impairment. The presence of drugs in her system also did not prove she was still impaired because the drugs stay in the system for several days.
The absence of dilation in her pupils was brought up as an important factor, indicating impairment from drugs being absent in the defendant. The prior witnesses said that this was not an important determinant, but the defense contended it was.
The closing arguments will continue on Friday morning at 9 am.
