See also: Richard
Jensen Criminal Trial Deposition
See also: Richard Jensen Civil Trial Deposition
See also: Richard Jensen Expert Witness
See also: Toxicological Truths and Untruths
(70 pages approx.)
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 BY MR. CORRELL:
11 Q. Will you state your name, please.
12 A. Richard E. Jensen, J-E-N-S-E-N.
13 Q. And what is your address?
14 A. My business address is 4690 IDS Center in
16 Q. And what is your employment?
17 A. I'm employed by Forensic Associates,
18 Incorporated, a company which I own. I'm employed as an
19 analytical chemist and toxicologist.
20 Q. Would you indicate for us, sir, what is your
22 A. I'm 59 years old.
23 Q. And would you indicate to the court in what
24 area of the country was it that you grew up?
25 A. I grew up in Iowa. I was born in Des Moines.
1 I was raised in Ames. My mother still lives in Ames.
2 Q. Have you received any education beyond a high
3 school diploma?
4 A. Yes, I have.
5 Q. And would you indicate where you received the
6 , if you, in fact, did receive one?
7 A. I received a bachelor of science degree at
8 Iowa State University in --
9 Q. I guess it's a BS.
10 A. That's correct. In 1960 with a major in
12 Q. And did you receive any formal education
13 leading to degrees after the 1960 degree?
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. And what year and what institution?
16 A. I graduated then from the University of Iowa
17 with a master of science degree with thesis and research
18 in analytical chemistry and in 1965 again from the
19 University of Iowa with a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry,
20 thesis and research in that same area.
21 Q. When you received your Ph.D., what kind of
22 chemistry was it?
23 A. Analytical chemistry.
24 Q. What's analytical chemistry mean?
25 A. That's that branch of chemistry that deals
1 with analysis, as you might surmise, not only deals with
2 the type of material that's present, that is identifying
3 the type of material present, but also the quantity of
4 material present, usually deals with small concentrations
5 of material.
6 Q. After you received your Ph.D. in analytical
7 chemistry in 1965, did you obtain employment generally
8 related to that field?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And would you indicate for the court, what
11 has been your career since the receipt of that doctorate
12 degree in 1965?
13 A. Yes. I -- I taught for one year at Mankato
14 State University in Mankato, Minnesota.
15 Q. What area?
16 A. I taught analytical chemistry, instrumental
17 analysis, clinical chemistry and conducted and directed
18 research with undergraduates and graduate students. I
19 then moved to a private liberal arts college in St.
20 Peter, Minnesota, Gustavus Adolphus College, and there I
21 taught for 13 and a half years in the same area,
22 analytical chemistry, instrumental analysis, began
23 teaching courses in developing expertise in the area of
24 criminalistics and forensic science. I was in Gustavus
25 until 1979. The last three years I was chairman of the
1 chemistry department. I left, on a leave of absence,
2 Gustavus in the fall of 1979.
3 Q. Where did you go then?
4 A. I went to the crime laboratory for the state
5 of Minnesota, and in the first six months there I
6 participated in every section of the laboratory
7 evaluating evidence, looking at methods of analysis,
8 evaluating those dealing with evidence and conducted
9 specific research in the areas of serology and evidential
10 breath testing. After six months there I was asked to
11 remain as a temporary supervisor of the alcohol testing
12 section, and that's the section that tests for alcohol in
13 all substances except breath. It would be -- that would
14 be blood, spinal fluid, vitreous humor, other
15 physiological fluids. After remaining in that position
16 for six months, I resigned my collegiate position at
17 Gustavus, applied for and was given one of the positions
18 of assistant director of the crime lab for the state of
19 Minnesota and coordinated the chemical testing program
20 for the state of Minnesota.
21 Q. And when did you receive that appointment to
22 be the, what was it, assistant director of the Minnesota
23 crime lab?
24 A. That's correct. And that was in the fall of
25 1980. It was a year after I came to the crime lab.
1 Q. And in the overall hierarchy of the state of
2 Minnesota crime lab, what was the -- what was the
3 position that you had? How would that fit into that
5 A. It was number two position. I was
6 responsible to the director of the laboratory, and I
7 shared that number two position. By the way, there
8 was -- I was the assistant director as related to the
9 chemistry side of the laboratory, and another gentleman,
10 whom I knew quite well, was the assistant director
11 related to the biological side of the laboratory. My
12 specific duties were the day-to-day operations and the
13 analysis of evidence and procedures of analysis in the
14 areas of alcohol testing, breath testing, chemistry which
15 dealt with arson, fire debris and other chemical
16 substances and drug testing, also included toxicology, of
18 Q. And for how long a period of time did you
19 hold that position with the state of Minnesota
20 criminalistics laboratory?
21 A. I was there for four years.
22 Q. And during that four years, did you spend --
23 describe for us the amount or portion of your time that
24 you spent, work time spent dealing with blood-alcohol or
25 alcohol related issues?
1 A. I spent the majority of my time with alcohol
2 related issues. At the time that I was there we had some
3 changes in breath-alcohol instruments. We were
4 continuing research in the areas of breath- and blood-
5 alcohol. My -- my -- sorry, my supervisory position in
6 blood-alcohol, continued my work there in training
7 individual analysts in the techniques of the analytical
8 measurement itself, was required to conduct experiments,
9 determinations when special needs would come up. I
10 remember some in the blood-alcohol area where we were
11 getting some spurious results in our analyses, and we
12 needed to determine what that was, and I took a hands-on
13 approach in all of those types of situations and
15 Q. When in 1984 had you -- by the end of 1984
16 approximately how much -- many years of your professional
17 career would you have spent by that time in working with
18 alcohol blood analysis?
19 A. About five years. Of course, it goes back
20 further than that if you want to talk about the
21 techniques of blood analysis, because those, of course,
22 were ones that I learned as an undergraduate and graduate
23 student and applied, but not specifically with blood-
25 Q. When you left the laboratory in 1984, would
1 you indicate to the court then where you went?
2 A. I went to a private laboratory in Boulder,
3 Colorado, called ChemaTox Laboratory, and there I
4 continued my work in alcohol and drug testing for the
5 Colorado Highway Patrol and other law enforcement
6 agencies, hands-on analyzing samples, testifying as to
7 the interpretation of a test result.
8 Q. And for how long did you remain in Colorado
9 in that position?
10 A. That was a brief period of time. That was
11 only four months.
12 Q. Okay. And then where did you go?
13 A. I returned to the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/
14 St. Paul, and I started my own organization, Forensic
15 Associates. I was the sole employee at that time. I was
16 also the director of forensic toxicology at Metropolitan
17 Medical Center. I was in charge of those procedures in
18 alcohol and drug analysis that would eventually go to
19 court. I continued with Forensic Associates, continued
20 with Metropolitan Medical Center until it was bought by
21 ChemaTox Laboratories, and then I continued on my work as
22 director of forensic toxicology with ChemaTox doing the
23 same thing, and there it was just a position where it
24 only dealt with those cases that eventually went to
25 court. I have reduced my work with ChemaTox
1 Laboratories. I used to train people in alcohol testing
2 for the Department of Transportation, programs through
3 them; the Nuclear Power Plant, programs through them; and
4 now I am just director of alcohol toxicology because
5 that's all my time will allow.
6 Q. What is ChemaTox?
7 A. ChemaTox Laboratory is a private laboratory
8 in Boulder, Colorado. Medtox Laboratory is a private
9 laboratory in St. Paul, Minnesota.
10 Q. Which of those two are you now associated
12 A. Medtox Laboratories.
13 Q. Is that doing the continuation of the same
14 type of work that you started doing back in 1984?
15 A. Only -- only from the standpoint that I do
16 not do any more hands-on work. I do not do the analyses.
17 Q. Now, what, if anything, have you done as far
18 as keeping abreast of the professional academic
19 literature in the field of blood-alcohol analysis?
20 A. I try to keep track of all of the academic
21 literature as it relates to that. That is the peer-
22 reviewed academic literature, that which is published by
23 scientists in the field. I review publications on a
24 regular basis from a variety of sources, libraries,
25 government agencies, and I collect those publications and
1 keep them for future reference.
2 Q. What have you done in recent years, if
3 anything, regarding providing continuing education for
4 people in law enforcement or in the legal community
5 relative to blood-alcohol issues?
6 A. I've given a wide variety of lectures to both
7 professionals, that is scientific professionals, lawyers,
8 judges, as related to the interpretation and the testing
9 of blood for alcohol and drugs and other substances for
11 Q. And have you ever had occasion to give
12 seminars or presentations to governmental agencies who
13 are concerned with the -- their testing procedures and
14 the -- the legitimate and illegitimate conclusions that
15 may be drawn from those?
16 A. I have. We have government agencies that
17 attend those seminars. It's been a long time since I've
18 done one specifically for government agencies, of course.
19 Q. Have you on a continual basis involved
20 yourself in keeping abreast of the literature since 1979
21 in the blood-alcohol -- on those issues?
22 A. Yes, indeed.
23 Q. And have you done that basic -- has that
24 been basically your focus of your career in those last
25 17 years?
1 A. Absolutely. It's been the absolute focus
2 we -- myself and my associates who have come on board
3 deal in some cases with the effects of drugs, the
4 measurements of drugs and the effects on the human body,
5 but that's a very small percentage of what we do. Most
6 of the work that we do relates to alcohol.
7 Q. Do you have the ability to, in a succinct,
8 lucid manner, attempt to describe for this record what
9 happens when a human being consumes alcohol, how -- what
10 is the general process?
11 A. I can do that. I can do that very simply.
12 Q. Would you do that?
13 A. Yes. There are three processes that must be
14 considered when that occurs. Normally what we do with
15 human beings is we ingest the alcoholic beverage orally,
16 although generally a diluted alcoholic beverage. When I
17 talk about alcohol, I mean ethyl alcohol, which is what
18 is found in most spirits that are consumed. That goes
19 into the stomach, and it stays, that beverage stays in
20 the stomach for a period of time. A small amount is
21 absorbed through the walls of the stomach into the --
22 into the blood system, but that's only about 5 to 7
23 percent of the total amount consumed.
24 Q. Let me ask you. If prior to the alcohol
25 going into the bloodstream from the stomach, does alcohol
1 have any influence or effect on an individual? Can it
2 have any until it gets into the bloodstream?
3 A. Not at all. As a matter of fact, it has to
4 be transported by the bloodstream. Once it gets there,
5 it has to be transported to the brain to have any
6 detrimental effect, but alcohol in the stomach has
7 absolutely no effect on an individual as it relates to
8 any measurable quantity or function.
9 Q. And I believe you just indicated that a
10 small, maybe 5 to 7 percent of alcohol in the stomach --
11 tell us what happens to that 5 to 7 percent.
12 A. That passes through the walls of the stomach
13 and gets directly into the bloodstream. The remainder of
14 the alcoholic beverage along with the stomach contents
15 passes through the pylorus valve into the small
16 intestine, and there it's rapidly absorbed into the
17 bloodstream. The bloodstream carries the alcohol, the
18 ethyl alcohol then unchanged through the system. It goes
19 to the liver. Then it goes to the heart. Then it goes
20 to the lungs. Then it goes back to the heart. Then it
21 goes out to the extremities.
22 Q. Let me -- I'll go back a minute if I can.
23 When it goes from the stomach through the pylorus valve?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Does that do that all at one time, or what --
1 what happens? How does that occur?
2 A. The pylorus valve is a sphincter valve which
3 opens on occasion and allows the contents of the stomach
4 to go into the small intestine, and what occurs is that
5 it's a plug of material from the stomach passes through
6 the pylorus into the small intestine, and then the
7 pylorus closes. When that material is dealt with by the
8 small intestine, then more of the stomach contents --
9 Q. Can you wait just a minute.
10 (At which time a brief pause was taken.)
11 A. More of the contents then pass into the small
13 Q. And does it warrant, when the contents go
14 from the stomach to the intestine, that that is where
15 that remaining 93, 95 percent is ultimately then absorbed
16 into the bloodstream?
17 A. That's absolutely correct. When we talk
18 about absorption, we talk about the rate of absorption,
19 and that is the time that it takes to go from the time
20 you finish your last drink until you reach a maximum
21 blood-alcohol concentration, and that's exceedingly
23 Q. And if a person's -- does not have that
24 absorption into the blood and then the blood ultimately
25 to the brain, does that -- is there any consequence to
1 the alcohol in the person's stomach?
2 A. No. It could serve as a irritant to the
3 stomach lining, but in terms of affecting the
4 individual's behavior, no.
5 Q. Okay. Now, would you indicate, has there
6 been any significant amount of research, investigation,
7 articles written, books written on absorption of alcohol
8 into the body?
9 A. Yes. .
10 Q. And is that a phenomenon -- for how long
11 historically has that been studied?
12 A. It was studied -- that phenomenon, in fact,
13 alcohol is the most studied drug in the world for the
14 longest time and with the highest number of articles.
15 The rate of absorption has been studied over and over and
16 over again in an attempt to try to pinpoint the time at
17 which it takes to go from the finishing your last drink
18 to maximum blood-alcohol concentration.
19 Q. Okay. Now, do you have, or have you brought
20 any what would be demonstrative aids that may be of
21 assistance in your testimony to explain the absorption
23 A. Yes. I have -- I have two. I have one that
24 simply describes the entire process. Both explain the
25 entire process; one for demonstrative purposes and one of
1 an actual individual.
2 Q. Would you want to show those -- let me hand
3 those -- I can show them to Mr. Wadding and see -- see if
4 he has any immediate reaction. (Complied.)
5 MR. CORRELL: I'm not going to offer these as
6 evidence, but -- they're for demonstrative purposes.
7 Q. I'm going to hand you, sir --
8 MR. CORRELL: I think I'll ask our reporter
9 to mark it so it will be referred to in the record.
10 (At which time Defendant's Exhibits "5" and
11 "6" were marked for identification.)
12 Q. I'm going to set behind you, Dr. Jensen, what
13 the reporter has marked for us as Defendant's Exhibit
14 "5". Let me first ask you, is that an exhibit that you
15 have caused to be prepared?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And would you indicate, what is the goal of
18 that exhibit?
19 A. The goal of this exhibit is simply to give an
20 illustrative example as to the processes that occur when
21 an individual consumes alcoholic beverages as related to
22 the rate and change of blood-alcohol concentration as a
23 function of time.
24 Q. And what, if anything, does Exhibit "5" have
25 to do with this phrase, absorption?
1 A. What it does is that it shows the area that
2 has not been labeled. It shows the area which is known
3 as absorption, and that's the first part of the curve.
4 Q. Is -- I suppose we've all heard the term
5 absorption as used not in a scientific way but just in
6 our everyday understanding. What correlation does the
7 term, in your area of analysis, how does that compare to
8 just the general understanding of the term?
9 A. The general understanding of the term is very
10 close to what we talk about in terms of absorption, and
11 that is alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream
12 unchanged. There is no chemical reaction. It simply is
13 absorbed into the bloodstream and then moved by the
14 bloodstream. It's the very common definition of
16 Q. And for the purposes of blood-alcohol
17 analysis, by the term absorption, what are you attempting
18 to define?
19 A. Only that time period. When you talk about
20 absorption, you must talk about a rate of absorption, and
21 that's the time period it takes from the time you finish
22 your last drink until the time you reach maximum blood-
23 alcohol concentration.
24 Q. And would you -- by turning and standing and
25 perhaps using the pointer, would you make reference to
1 Exhibit "5," please. Tell us what line on -- going up
2 and down and the line on the bottom show?
3 A. This -- this shows blood-alcohol
4 concentration in the normal units that are used on the --
5 on the -- that axis. On the horizontal axis is time.
6 Just in arbitrary units, they are minutes, but, of
7 course, the time in and of itself absolutely doesn't mean
8 anything. That's -- it's immaterial to any discussion
9 except to show that's a time line.
10 Q. Okay. Now, the one that I guess is the
11 vertical, that would purport to show what again?
12 A. Blood-alcohol concentration.
13 Q. And down at the right angle where those two
14 meet, that's where that curve starts; is that correct?
15 A. Starts here. There's no alcohol consumption
16 and a zero blood-alcohol concentration.
17 Q. And would you explain what is happening when
18 that curve is going up?
19 A. Excuse me. That's absorption. And this
20 is -- as I said, this is a free-hand idealized curve in
21 which one -- it shows that the alcohol concentration
22 rises until one finishes their last drink. Then there's
23 continued absorption for a period of time through this
24 region and going past the maximum as a matter of fact.
25 The alcohol distributes itself through all the water
1 tissues of the body, and even though the body is capable
2 of eliminating alcohol from the time we start consuming
3 it, once it's all absorbed, we see the effect of
4 elimination, and that is this part of the curve right
5 here. So the curve attempts to show, in a manner that's
6 not related to any specific individual, that the
7 absorption rate is much more rapid than the rate of
8 elimination, that once achieved we see the effect of the
9 rates of elimination.
10 Q. Okay. Now, could you set that down, and I
11 think up there is Exhibit "6". And I would again ask
12 you, is -- Exhibit "6" is an exhibit that you prepared,
14 A. I did. I took this from an Australian D.O.T.
15 Study, Department of Transportation study as an example
16 of an individual.
17 Q. Okay. And what -- how do you refer to that
18 Exhibit "6"?
19 A. This is also a blood-alcohol curve of a
20 specific individual.
21 Q. Okay. And the first one was just more or
22 less a visual aid to show how it would be generally, not
23 related to any specific individual or specific set of
25 A. Absolutely correct.
1 Q. Okay. Now, on the Exhibit "6," does -- at
2 the bottom of that horizontal line, is that -- again, is
3 that divided into the time line?
4 A. That's correct. This is the same axis we saw
5 on the previous exhibit, both the concentration axis and
6 the time axis.
7 Q. It's obviously, when we look at "5" as
8 opposed to "6," Exhibit "5" is a smooth curve. Exhibit
9 "6" seems to have some irregular movement in it. Would
10 you explain why that is?
11 MR. WADDING: Your Honor, I'm going to object
12 at this point to testimony with reference to this exhibit
13 as being -- not being relevant. As Mr. Jensen has
14 indicated, it is a specific individual, you know,
15 obviously somebody from Australia, not relevant to this
16 situation or this defendant in particular, and I don't
17 think it would be relevant.
18 COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
19 A. Each of the points are specific measured
20 blood-alcohol concentrations that appear on this chart.
21 And the purpose of this graph compared to the first one
22 is to show the individual variations, being quite broad
23 in boast, the absorption part of the curve up to here and
24 continuing in the elimination part of the curve. These
25 particular portions that we see in which it goes up and
1 comes down on the absorption side is a process called
2 steepling. Here we see it, and here we see it where the
3 pylorus valve opens, allows the food and stomach contents
4 to go into the small intestine, the alcohol is rapidly
5 absorbed. Then we see an increase in concentration. If
6 no other food content or stomach content go into the
7 small intestine which contain alcohol, then it goes back
8 down. The purpose of showing this individual curve is to
9 show that an individual, any individual, this one in
10 particular, does not have a smooth curve as it relates to
11 alcohol absorption and elimination.
12 Q. And is that Exhibit "6," does that replicate
13 a -- the actual grafting -- or graphing of the test as it
14 appeared in scientific literature?
15 A. Absolutely. It's exactly what it was. I
16 took it directly from that.
17 Q. And those various, I guess what I would call
18 dots or periods where it goes to a line and then there's
19 a period, what do those represent?
20 A. That's the actual measured concentration.
21 Every time you see a dot, that was what created the curve
22 because it was measured -- a sample was taken from the
23 individual and analyzed to determine that concentration.
24 Q. Okay. And in -- in that situation, can
25 you -- is it demonstrated by Exhibit "6," can you tell us
1 what that generally shows in lay language, not scientific
2 language, but lay language?
3 A. What this shows is that anybody's alcohol
4 curve is irregular. We see this in individual curves
5 when measured as a function of time with multiple points
6 as opposed to measuring one point. We see quite a
7 variation in the -- particularly in the absorption side
8 of the curve, and we see also variation in the
9 elimination side of the curve. And that's the purpose of
10 this is to show that it's not just a smooth line.
11 Q. And in -- in that, and I realize that is just
12 one individual example, but in that example, for how long
13 a period of time is a person continuing to absorb alcohol
14 into their blood after they have finished their last
16 A. The rate of absorption is exceedingly
18 Q. But in this one, does it show in this one?
19 A. In this particular case it took just over two
20 hours for the individual to reach maximum blood-alcohol
21 concentration. Now, the fault with that is that I can't
22 tell you where the individual stopped for sure, so it's
23 something less than two hours. They stopped consuming
24 the -- this one -- this Australian rugby player consumed
25 Boston Lager beer.
Santamaria, J. N., Ethanol ingestion studies, Department of Community Medicine, St. Vincent's Hospital, Fitzroy, Australia Department of Transport, Office of Road Safety, 1979.
1 Q. Now, is the literature where there have been
2 independent tests, do those tests confirm that the
3 absorption rate can go on for how long a period of time
4 after the last drink is consumed?
5 A. It can go on for quite some time. There
6 is --
7 Q. And -- what would be towards the longer
9 A. Well, the longest we've seen is about six
10 hours. That's an extreme situation in which an
11 individual consumed alcoholic beverages on a meal of
12 three pounds of potatoes. It took that long for the
13 alcohol to be absorbed and reach maximum blood-alcohol
14 concentration, but is not unusual to find the time that
15 it takes the blood-alcohol concentration to reach its
16 maximum to reach levels of an hour to two hours.
17 Q. Okay. And is that recognized in the
19 A. It's recognized all over the literature.
20 Every study shows that there is an extreme variable.
21 Some of the studies show 30 to 60 minutes is the time.
22 Some studies show 15 minutes to two hours or more is the
23 time of absorption. Some show 60 minutes to 90 minutes.
24 What they have in common is that it's all about an hour
25 for the rate of absorption. That is from the time you
1 finish your last drink until you reach your maximum
2 blood-alcohol concentration is about -- is about an hour
3 simply because of the variables that are involved in that
4 physiological process.
5 Q. Now, does a person have -- one individual
6 person, speaking of those variables, will they always
7 absorb at the same rate, or is that unique to the person,
8 or is it unique to the circumstances?
9 A. It's unique to the circumstances and the
10 person as a matter of fact, but it's more unique to the
12 Q. So we can't test one individual and say
13 individual A has a specific absorption rate and we will
14 know that that will be in place anytime, anyplace? That
15 wouldn't be right, would it?
16 A. Can't be right. There's no way that that can
17 be replicated. We can come close to replicating the
18 elimination rate, but we can't even come close in
19 replicating the absorption rate.
20 Q. Knowing that, as you have indicated, that
21 there are variables in this absorption rate, do you have
22 an opinion as to what those variables are that can cause
23 and affect the absorption rate?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Would you indicate what those variables are?
1 A. There are a whole variety of them, but the
2 most important ones are food, that is the amount and type
3 of food in an individual's stomach, the type of alcoholic
4 beverage consumed, the state of the individual's health,
5 particularly as it relates to their stomach, the rate, of
6 course, at which they consume the alcoholic beverage
7 since it cannot be absorbed any faster than it's
8 consumed, and what's most important than anything else is
9 the stress that an individual's under. All of those
10 things are variable. Those are the major factors to be
11 considered. There are others including medications, et
12 cetera. Those can't be replicated from one drinking
13 session to another, and that's why the rate of alcohol
14 absorption is different in an individual from time to
16 Q. Okay. And as far as the -- on the issue of
17 some of those and how they may affect, how is the -- how
18 does stress -- why does that have any impact?
19 A. We tend to keep things in our stomach longer
20 under stress is what the impact is, and that simply means
21 that the pylorus doesn't open. Oftentimes we'll be upset
22 with a rolling stomach. We can feel our stomach roll.
23 It's keeping food in it. Where other times after some
24 period of eating we can -- if we happen to -- to bring up
25 a little stomach gas, we can taste what we had for lunch
1 or for dinner, and that indicates it's still in our
2 stomach. And stress does that to us as human beings. We
3 tend to keep things in our stomach longer under stress.
4 Q. With regard to the situation of the rate of
5 consumption, how does that have any impact on this
6 absorption rate?
7 A. There are two things. One is that, of
8 course, if you consume an alcoholic beverage very, very
9 slow, then, of course, your rate of absorption can't be
10 any faster than the rate at which you consume it. The
11 other thing, however, is if you consume alcoholic
12 beverages relatively rapidly, we tend to keep those, the
13 beverage in our stomach for a longer period of time.
14 Q. With regard to, how is it that food in the
15 stomach can play a role, if any, in the absorption rate?
16 A. Food stays in the stomach to be processed,
17 and it has to be processed in the stomach before it's
18 passed on into the small intestine. And when you combine
19 alcohol with food, and particularly drinking with or
20 drinking on top of a meal, then because of the food you
21 tend to keep the beverages and the food in your stomach
22 longer. It just simply has to be processed before it
23 passes on.
24 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned in your previous
25 testimony the elimination rate. Tell us what that is.
1 A. Elimination rate is, once we reach -- well,
2 once alcohol, I'm sorry, gets into the bloodstream, the
3 first place that it gets to is to the liver, and that's
4 the organ that detoxifies the body. We can eliminate
5 alcohol in the liver, and it's done by a chemical
6 reaction. That's a relatively set chemical reaction for
7 an individual depending upon their experience with
8 alcoholic beverages. People who are abusers of alcoholic
9 beverages eliminate alcohol more rapidly than, for
10 instance, a social drinker would. That stays the same
11 relatively speaking for an individual. There's some
12 variation, of course, from individual to individual. And
13 we get a little variation within an individual from time
14 to time. We can eliminate alcohol also by it coming out
15 on our breath, by coming out in perspiration. We also
16 lose it through the urine. But by far the most important
17 is the elimination that is done by the liver.
18 Q. Now, is there any elimination rate that is
19 generally recognized in the literature as opposed to the
20 absorption rate which has great variance?
21 A. Yes, there is.
22 Q. And would you explain that -- that rate?
23 A. That rate is determined, and it's an average
24 because all individuals are different. There's an
25 average rate, but it falls within ranges, and that
1 standard would eliminate at a rate of approximately .012-14
2 percent per hour, where a social drinker would be
3 approximately .015 percent per hour with a range between
4 .01 and .02. In an alcoholic or an abuser of alcoholic
5 beverages would eliminate at approximately -- I'm sorry,
6 at an average rate of .03 percent per hour with a range
7 on that also. So it depends upon your experience with
8 alcoholic beverages what your elimination rate is. It's
9 much more definable than the rates of absorption.
10 Q. Okay. And what would be the generally
11 accepted in the scientific community of the absorption
12 rates for a social drinker?
13 A. Absorption rates or elimination rate?
14 Q. Excuse me. I misspoke. I meant to say
15 elimination rate.
16 A. Generally speaking, we use .015 percent per
18 Q. Now, are you familiar with a procedure which
19 is utilized sometimes by some people called retrograde
21 A. Yes, I am.
22 Q. And would you tell us, what is retrograde
24 A. Yes. Can I use the graphic material?
25 Q. Please
1 A. The practice of retrograde extrapolation is
2 to only be applied to the elimination side of the curve
3 where one has a test value at a particular time and wants
4 to predict the blood-alcohol concentration at some time
5 prior. That process is done by assuming the elimination
6 rate of the individual and adding that to the value
7 measured to obtain the -- a blood-alcohol concentration
8 at some time prior. That's the way it's done in terms of
9 very simple practice.
10 Q. I'm going to hand to you, sir, what's been
11 marked as received into evidence as Defendant's Exhibit
12 "2". I'd like you to take a moment and familiarize
13 yourself with that.
14 A. (Complied.)
15 Q. Have you had an opportunity to do that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, there is a -- what would appear to me to
18 be a formula on that. Do you recognize that formula?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And what formula is that? 15
21 A. That's a formula that's oftentimes used in an
22 attempt to retrograde extrapolate. It's an alcohol
23 concentration at a time two, which would be this time
24 right here, related to -- equaled to an alcohol
25 concentration, a time one, times the time period between
1 the two and the elimination rate, and that's exactly what
2 I just described.
3 Q. Is there any doubt in your mind that Exhibit
4 "2" is the retrograde extrapolation formula?
5 A. No doubt in my mind.
6 Q. What is the acceptance of retrograde
7 extrapolation in the scientific community?
8 A. It's rarely accepted in the scientific
9 community where you only have two time periods and a
10 single measurement.
11 Q. And why is that?
12 A. The reason's because there are far too many
13 variables in terms of the alcohol curve and the
14 parameters that come in relationship to the formation of
15 that alcohol curve. There are far too many things we
16 don't know about individuals in order for scientists to
17 be able to predict things at the level of -- of
18 reasonable doubt, and that's the problem we have with it.
19 Q. Has there been a significant amount of
20 literature and discussion in the scientific community
21 about the viability and reliability of retrograde
23 A. There has been, yes. In fact, one author in
24 particular has been quite vocal about retrograde
1 Q. And who is that author?
2 A. That would be Dr. Kurt Dubowski of the
3 College of Medicine, University of Oklahoma.
4 Q. And as far as the issue of that methodology
5 called retrograde extrapolation, would he be considered
6 the preeminent expert in the United States on that issue?
7 A. He's the preeminent author and researcher,
8 and he includes that, that's absolutely correct.
9 Q. Are you -- have you made yourself familiar
10 with his works over the years?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And have you, in fact, kept as part of your
13 library, your research library, have you maintained
14 professional articles that he has written on that very
16 A. Yes, I have.
17 Q. And do you have those articles with you
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. And could you make those available to
22 A. (Complied.)
23 Q. Would you first make reference to the
24 article, the publication in which the article appeared?
25 A. The -- the first article which I have is
1 Alcohol Technical Reports in 1976 by Kurt M. Dubowski.
2 Q. And in that article of 1976, what conclusions
3 or what statements does he make regarding the
4 reliability, the reliability of retrograde extrapolation?
5 MR. WADDING: Well, I'm going to object, Your
6 Honor. It's obviously hearsay. He's not testifying to
7 his own opinions. He's testifying to another person's
8 opinion. If he wanted Mr. Dubowski here, he could
9 apparently have hired him to be here, because we know
10 he's still alive. This is simply hearsay.
11 COURT: Mr. Correll?
12 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, the witness is
13 being asked to basically address the issue of the
14 research in the scientific community, which happens all
15 the time in courtrooms where individuals utilize and make
16 reference to identifiable authors and treatises.
17 COURT: I'll consider it, but why don't we
18 also take a short break here. We'll reconvene -- let's
19 meet back at 3 o'clock and start up again. Thank you.
20 (At which time a recess was taken at
21 3:00 p.m., May 21, 1997; and proceedings commenced at
22 3:15 p.m., May 21, 1997, with the court, counsel and
23 defendant present.)
24 COURT: I wasn't certain that Rule 803
25 allowed treatises in that manner on direct examination.
1 I've reviewed the rule. The objection is overruled.
2 MR. CORRELL: If I can just rephrase the
3 question? Is that agreeable with everyone?
4 COURT: Go ahead.
5 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. CORRELL:
7 Q. Dr. Jensen, would you indicate the names of
8 the three treatises authored by Dr. Dubowski that you
9 have in your possession here this afternoon?
10 A. A Human Pharmacokinetics of Ethanol. Roman
11 Numeral I. Peak Blood Concentrations and Elimination in
12 Male and Female Subjects is the first one published in
13 1976. The second one also published in 1976 in the
14 Journal of Forensic Sciences is called Breath-Alcohol
15 Analysis, Uses, Methods and Some Forensic Problems,
16 Review and Opinion, by Mason and Dubowski. And in 1985
17 by Dr. Dubowski in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
18 Absorption, Distribution and Elimination of Alcohol,
19 Highway Safety Aspects.
20 Q. With regard to those three articles, do you
21 consider those to be in generally accepted scientific
22 journals on the issue of blood-alcohol?
23 A. Yes, they are. They are also peer reviewed.
24 Q. Okay. And what is the consequence of peer
25 review? What does that phrase mean to us?
1 A. What that means is that they're published --
2 they are submitted to a panel of scientific peers, that
3 is people who are conducting research in the same area
4 and decided whether it's worthy of publication.
5 Q. Without going into each of those three
6 articles, what is the thrust of those articles by Dr.
7 Dubowski relative to the reliability of retrograde
9 A. The thrust is that he refers to it as
10 speculative retrograde extrapolation, and the biggest
11 error involved in it among others is that it is unknown
12 an individual's state of absorption, whether they're
13 still absorbing alcohol or not.
14 Q. Do you agree or disagree with that conclusion
15 of Dr. Dubowski?
16 A. I agree with Dr. Dubowski's position as it
17 relates to matters that are criminal matters in
18 attempting to do retrograde extrapolation, yes.
19 Q. And is that because the result cannot be
20 relied upon?
21 A. It cannot be relied upon, or you have to make
22 so many assumptions that it may be applicable to other
23 matters in terms of making predictions but not where
24 you're looking at a specific number.
25 Q. The fact that the last of these articles is a
1 1985, does that mean anything relative to his present
3 A. Simply means that he has maintained his
4 position in this. In fact, the transcripts of Dubowski
5 that I have indicates that he continues to testify in
6 this same manner.
7 Q. Okay. With regard to a situation, I'm going
8 to ask you some general questions, I'm going to ask you
9 to assume certain facts. If you don't understand those
10 facts, ask me to repeat them, will you, please?
11 A. All right.
12 Q. I would ask you to assume that Mr. Rokes had
13 three 12-ounce beers in his last hour of drinking. I'd
14 like you to assume that he finished the last of those
15 beers within ten minutes of an automobile accident.
16 Thirdly, I'd like you to assume that that automobile
17 accident occurred at approximately 10:58 p.m. Fourth,
18 I'd like you to assume that blood was withdrawn from him
19 at 12:28 a.m. Five, that the blood withdrawal was tested
20 by the Iowa criminalistic laboratory and determined to
21 have a blood-alcohol content of .087. Do you understand
22 the facts in that hypothetical?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Based on that hypothetical set of facts, do
25 you have an opinion as to whether Mr. Rokes' blood-
at he continues to testify in
1 alcohol was rising after the accident at 10:58 p.m.?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. And what is your opinion?
4 A. His blood-alcohol concentration was rising.
5 MR. WADDING: I guess, Your Honor, I'm going
6 to object and ask the objection precede the answer --
7 maybe perhaps I'm not understanding this correctly, but
8 this witness just testified that that type of assumption,
9 this type of opinion was unreliable in the literature
10 that he is aware of and -- and that being the opinion
11 means nothing and is irrelevant and immaterial.
12 COURT: You'll be able to test that on
13 cross-examination. The objection is overruled. Do you
14 have an opinion?
15 WITNESS: Yes, I do have an opinion.
16 COURT: Mr. Correll.
17 Q. And what is your opinion?
18 A. My opinion is that he -- because of the time
19 between the last consumption of alcoholic beverage and
20 the accident is the -- is a much less amount of time than
21 the most rapid absorption of alcohol that we see,
22 therefore, he is clearly absorbing alcohol at the time of
23 the accident and afterwards.
24 Q. Assuming that same set of facts, do you
25 have -- in your opinion, could the maximum blood-alcohol
1 level of Mr. Rokes have been .087?
2 A. Certainly could have been, yes.
3 Q. Again, assuming the same facts in that
4 hypothetical, in your opinion, can anyone determine what
5 the exact blood-alcohol level was of the person at the
6 time of the accident at 10:58?
7 A. No.
8 Q. And is that what would be the utilization of
9 the so-called formula, the retrograde formula that would
10 be used?
11 A. That's the application of that formula is not
12 applicable in this particular situation. I can show you
13 on this graph.
14 Q. Okay. Would you do that?
15 A. When an individual is still absorbing
16 alcohol, there's a very short period of time between the
17 last drink, and there's been rapid consumption up until
18 the last drink, means that one was still absorbing
19 alcohol. And if a blood sample is taken, for instance,
20 in this particular -- at this particular time and you
21 predict back to the time of an accident or some incident,
22 what you will do is that you will overestimate that
23 individual's blood-alcohol concentration because the only
24 thing that we know is that they're lower at some time
25 prior. Some of this consumption is very close to the
1 time of an incident or an accident, and retrograde
2 extrapolation fails completely.
3 Q. Okay. Thank you. Again, assuming the same
4 facts that I've given you in that hypothetical, Dr.
5 Jensen, do you have an opinion as to whether or not Mr.
6 Rokes' blood-alcohol level could have been as low as .05
7 at the time of the accident of 10:58?
8 A. Could have been.
9 Q. In your opinion, again, assuming the same
10 facts that I've given you in that hypothetical, in your
11 opinion, is it more probable that at 10:58 his
12 blood-alcohol level was less than .087?
13 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object, Your
14 Honor. That is leading. More probable. I think that
15 the answer is contained within the question, and it's
16 obviously leading.
17 COURT: Overruled.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Yes what?
20 A. His blood-alcohol concentration is more
21 probable less than zero-eight-seven than above
22 zero-eight-seven at the time of the accident.
23 MR. CORRELL: That's all the questions I have
24 of this witness at this time, Your Honor.
25 COURT: Mr. Wadding?
2 BY MR. WADDING:
3 Q. You indicated that you currently work for
4 Forensic Associates; is that correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And you're the owner of that company?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And what is -- how would you -- do you have a
10 A. I'm president.
11 Q. Okay. And then you're also owned by
13 A. No.
14 Q. You're not owned by --
15 A. No. I'm not owned by anybody, no.
16 Q. And you -- currently your duties include
17 consulting and testifying; is that correct?
18 A. Absolutely correct. We do some training in
19 terms of breath testing and alcohol and drug testing as
20 related to the D.O.T., but most of the duties, most of
21 the duties are concerned with consulting with attorneys
22 or organizations and testifying, yes.
23 Q. Okay. And you describe that as being about
24 98 percent of what you do?
25 A. In terms of the active business of alcohol
1 and drug toxicology, yes. The rest of the time is simply
2 running a business.
3 Q. Didn't you tell me that 98 percent of your
4 time that you do consulting and testifying?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Okay. So that would be just a yes --
7 A. That's a yes.
8 Q. -- is that correct? And are you indicating
9 that anybody who would engage in retrograde extrapolation
10 is just simply incorrect in doing so?
11 A. Well, if we have enough information, we can
12 certainly do it in terms of making an estimate, and I --
13 I've said that before, if we have enough information.
14 And if the information indicates we can't, then we can't,
15 and it shouldn't be done.
16 Q. And your Forensic Associates is engaged in
17 that as well, aren't they?
18 A. I don't know that we have. We have made
19 estimates of blood-alcohol concentration based upon
20 Widmark's formula.
21 Q. Now -- well, when you talk about -- do you
22 know Anne Rummel Manly?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And is she employed with Forensic Associates?
25 A. Yes, she is.
1 Q. And she is formerly with the Minnesota
2 Division of Criminal Investigation or DCI; is that
4 A. She's with the BCA.
5 Q. She was with the BCA; is that correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And now she's with your firm; is that
9 A. That's absolutely correct.
10 Q. Are you aware of her testimony with regard to
11 State of Iowa versus Merle E. Shatzer?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Do you know that she testified on --
14 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. If he
15 is not familiar with the testimony, anything else is
16 irrelevant, and it's irrelevant because we don't know the
17 factual situation of that specific case.
18 COURT: He's allowed to finish his question.
19 Go ahead.
20 MR. WADDING: I withdraw it.
21 Q. Do you recognize her as an expert in the area
22 of alcohol -- alcohol elimination, absorption, use
24 A. Yes. In terms of alcohol toxicology, yes.
25Q. And do you -- are you aware that she has, in
1 fact, testified with respect to retrograde extrapolation?
2 A. I don't know what she has. I don't know that
3 she has. She may have done Widmark's, but I'm not aware
4 of it, no.
5 Q. Now --
6 MR. WADDING: May I approach, Your Honor?
7 COURT: You may.
8 Q. Does this --
9 MR. WADDING: Well, let me mark it.
10 MR. CORRELL: May I see the cover sheet of
12 (At which time State's Exhibit "T" was marked
13 for identification.)
14 Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
15 State's Exhibit "T," marked for identification, and do
16 you recognize that as a transcript?
17 A. It appears to be a transcript. Certainly
18 it's not a certified copy, but I recognize it as
19 certainly a transcript.
20 Q. Okay. Now, it says down here that it's Beth
21 Wright, Certified Shorthand Reporter. You don't know who
22 that is, do you?
23 A. No, I don't.
24 Q. If I told you it was the woman sitting in
25 front of you, would you have any reason to doubt me?
1 A. I wouldn't doubt you.
2 Q. That's actually taking your testimony right
4 A. That's fine.
5 Q. And does that indicate it's a transcript of
6 testimony of Anne Rummel Manly during jury trial of state
7 of Iowa versus Merle Shatzer?
8 A. That's what it says, that's correct.
9 Q. Okay. And I want to refer you to the --
10 to --
11 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, I don't want to
12 interrupt him, but I want to interpose an objection that
13 I would like to have the opportunity to pose now at this
14 point in time.
15 COURT: Go ahead.
16 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, we would object to
17 the effort to attempt to incorporate as evidently
18 impeachment type of testimony testimony given by another
19 party, not this witness. You cannot impeach somebody
20 with the statement of another individual, and there's
21 been no showing that this person has the foundational
22 prerequisites that are recognized in the rules of
23 evidence, and you cannot use the testimony of an
24 individual in another -- another individual in another
25 trial in an effort to impeach this witness. If he has
1 testimony from this witness, that is one thing, but it is
2 improper -- we have no record, and we would object to --
3 it's improper impeachment.
4 COURT: I'm not sure, Mr. Wadding, where
5 you're going with this or how you intend to use the
6 transcript. I'm not aware of any rule of evidence that
7 would allow it to be used in the manner in which I think
8 you're going to be using it. The other concern I have is
9 that -- that I presided over that trial, I'm the fact
10 finder in this case, and depending on how far you're
11 going to -- going to carry this, it begins to put me in a
12 difficult position too. I just want to make sure that an
13 issue isn't brought in that is going prejudice either
15 MR. WADDING: Well, I'm -- then I'm not sure
16 what the court's alluding to. I'm simply asking if
17 anybody from his organization -- organization in which
18 he's the president of has engaged in retrograde
19 extrapolation. And I believe that he has indicated that
20 is not a -- a proper procedure to follow and that, in
21 fact, people from his own organization engage in the use
22 of retrograde extrapolation. And that's -- I think
23 that's an impeachment point. I think that I can use
24 that -- I think I can use any writing and that if the --
25 MR. CORRELL: May I see the front sheet
1 before you look --
2 MR. WADDING: No, not right now.
3 COURT: Mr. Wadding, Mr. Correll has a -- has
4 a right to see what you've already shown the witness and
5 the witness has reviewed already and you're asking him
6 questions about --
7 MR. WADDING: I don't have any problem with
8 him seeing it, Your Honor. I haven't been allowed to let
9 him testify off it yet.
10 COURT: Right. Well, I thought Mr. Correll
11 just asked to see the cover sheet of the document, and
12 you refused to allow him to see it.
13 MR. WADDING: Yes, I did. Is the court
14 ordering me to allow him to see it?
15 COURT: Yes.
16 MR. WADDING: All right. (Complied.) I
17 believe that the Rule of Evidence would include Rule 611,
18 also the use of authority under -- I think in general --
19 generally speaking in terms of the recognition of Ms.
20 Rummel Manly as an expert in that area and as well as an
21 employee of that firm.
22 COURT: Go ahead and ask your question, Mr.
1 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. WADDING:
3 Q. Well, isn't it true in state of Iowa versus
4 Merle E. Shatzer that Anne Rummel Manly considered
5 herself qualified in the area of retrograde
7 A. I'd have to read it.
8 Q. I refer you to page 14, sir. The --
9 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, if he's going to
10 take the time, he's been handed a document that consists
11 of approximately 50 pages, I'd like to have -- take a
12 break so the witness has an ample opportunity to examine
13 the document.
14 COURT: I think in fairness to the witness,
15 again, I'm not sure where you're going with it, Mr.
16 Wadding, or how far you intend to pursue it, but if
17 you're going to be asking this witness what that witness
18 was testifying to, I believe he's entitled to review the
19 document entirely before -- before giving any answers.
20 So we'll stand in recess until such time as the witness
21 has had an opportunity to review it.
22 WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
23 COURT: Thank you. Please let me know when
24 you're ready to proceed.
25 (At which time a recess was taken at
1 3:28 p.m., May 21, 1997; and proceedings commenced at
2 3:40 p.m., May 21, 1997, with the court, counsel and
3 defendant present.)
4 COURT: Are we ready to go, Mr. Wadding?
5 MR. WADDING: Yes.
6 COURT: Mr. Correll?
7 Mr. CORRELL: Yes.
8 COURT: Mr. Wadding?
9 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION
10 BY MR. WADDING:
11 Q. Mr. Jensen, have you had an opportunity to
12 review that transcript then?
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 Q. And does Ms. Rummel Manly --
15 A. Ms. Manly, that's correct.
16 Q. -- engage in retrograde extrapolation?
17 A. She does do that for purposes --
18 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me. I'm going to make
19 the objection, Your Honor, first of all, I think it is
20 irrelevant what another individual testified about in
21 another case. That is not a recognized way to impeach
22 people. There's limited ways you can impeach people.
23 They're all spelled out the in Iowa Rules of Evidence,
24 and you cannot impeach somebody with the testimony given
25 by a third-party. It is irrelevant.
1 COURT: Sustained. It's not a proper method
2 of impeachment. You can call that witness as a rebuttal
3 witness if you feel that's appropriate, Mr. Wadding.
4 Q. During the break did you have an opportunity
5 to speak with Mr. Correll?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And is that in reference to review of this
9 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm
10 going to object to that. This is the work product,
11 attorney/expert work product.
12 COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what was that in reference to?
15 A. He asked me what qualification, what her
16 degree was in.
17 Q. And her degree is in --
18 A. Chemistry.
19 Q. -- and biology?
20 A. And biology, that's correct.
21 Q. And there are persons that are involved in
22 alcohol and qualified -- can be qualified as experts that
23 engage in retrograde extrapolation; is that correct?
24 A. That is correct. People do engage in
25 retrograde extrapolation. That is absolutely correct.
1 Q. And have you -- we took your deposition on
2 May 9th, 1997; is that correct?
3 A. I believe that's correct, yes.
4 Q. And have you received any further -- further
5 information with reference to this case since May 9th of
7 A. Yes, I have.
8 Q. And what kind of information was that?
9 A. That was the information that was essentially
10 given to me in the hypothetical that Mr. Correll just
11 gave me.
12 Q. And you consider that to be a hypothetical?
13 A. Well, he gave it to me as a hypothetical. I
14 asked him -- we discussed this, of course, before here,
15 and asked him -- I asked him, of course, what the -- what
16 the alcohol consumption was, in particular the time of
17 the last drink is what I was most interested in.
18 Q. And when did you get that information?
19 A. I believe that was last night.
20 Q. So up until last night, you didn't have that
21 kind of information about the defendant's drinking or
22 anything of that nature?
23 A. I did not.
24 Q. So on May 9th I could not have made any
25 inquiry of it to you; is that correct?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And the -- and on May 9th you had no opinion
3 as to whether or not the defendant was intoxicated; is
4 that correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And do you agree that persons do exhibit
7 signs of impairment at .087?
8 A. Yes. People can. Yes. People can show that
9 that possibility clearly exists.
10 Q. Okay. And you would -- you would also agree
11 that alcohol is a central nervous system depressant?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. And when we say that, then it affects pretty
14 much all -- everything that we -- everything that we're
15 able to do; is that correct?
16 A. It --
17 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. I
18 object to the form of the question. It's -- contains
19 multiple questions and ask that it be rephrased.
20 COURT: Did you understand the question?
21 WITNESS: I understood the question.
22 COURT: You may answer it.
23 A. It can affect almost all of our functions,
24 that's correct.
25 Q. Because it affects our brain?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Okay. And, I mean, our brain pretty much
3 controls everything about us; is that correct?
4 A. That's absolutely right.
5 Q. So it can affect motor skills?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Affect vision?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Including clarity and peripheral vision?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Can affect judgment?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Reason?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Perception?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And to sit there and describe someone as
18 being intoxicated, I mean, obviously you can't open up
19 their head and point to a particular area, correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. I mean, you'd have to interpret the factual
22 circumstances; is that fair to say?
23 A. That's fair, that that certainly would be
24 part of the input that we would need to have, I agree.
25 Q. And how much do you get paid for your
2 A. We don't get paid anything for my testimony.
3 My time is $275.00 an hour.
4 Q. Okay. And is that what you're being paid
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And how many hours so far did you accumulate?
8 A. I don't know. It's something over ten or
9 twelve hours, if I remember correctly.
10 Q. And that's inclusive of everything you've
11 done on this?
12 A. Up until last night, that's correct.
13 MR. WADDING: That's all the questions I
14 have. Thank you.
15 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
16 BY MR. CORRELL:
17 Q. Dr. Jensen, based on the hypothetical that I
18 gave you, is it your opinion that it is equally possible
19 that Mr. Rokes' blood-alcohol level was less than .087 at
20 the time of the accident?
21 A. Oh, yes, as I testified before.
22 Q. And with regard to the fact that some people
23 may have some influence of alcohol at .087, does that
24 mean that all people are -- have influence of alcohol at
25 that level?
1 A. No, not necessarily and not in the same way.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. CORRELL: That's all.
4 COURT: Mr. Wadding?
6 BY MR. WADDING:
7 Q. We recognize influence of alcohol at lower
8 levels than that even; isn't that correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. I would
11 object to that. That is -- ask that my objection precede
12 the start of the witness' answer. That is an effort
13 apparently to allude to other state's different types of
14 testing for -- it's irrelevant.
15 COURT: That's not the way I understood the
16 question, but perhaps you could rephrase it, Mr. Wadding,
17 to make it more specific.
18 MR. WADDING: All right.
19 Q. Does alcohol affect you at lower levels than
21 A. It can, yes.
22 Q. And as low as a .05?
23 A. That's correct, depending upon certain
24 differences in an individual's experience with alcohol,
25 et cetera, it can, yes, that low.
1 Q. And, I mean, you know, that's what alcohol
2 does, doesn't it?
3 A. It affects you.
4 MR. WADDING: I don't have anything else.
6 MR. CORRELL: Nothing further.
7 COURT: Thank you.
8 WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. May I ask
9 you about these exhibits? Did you want those kept?
10 COURT: Ask Mr. Correll about that. They're
11 not entered into evidence in this case.
12 MR. CORRELL: I did not offer them. I used
13 them as demonstrative, and we do not need them.
14 COURT: Thank you. Take those with you.
15 WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
16 COURT: Mr. Correll?
17 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, at this time the
18 defendant rests.
19 COURT: Okay. Any rebuttal evidence, Mr.
21 MR. WADDING: No, Your Honor.