POST: "Something’s Rotten When A State Expert Takes The Fifth,"by Chris Seaton, published by 'Mimesis Law' on October 25, 2-16. Christopher Seaton is a criminal defense and
domestic relations attorney in Knoxville, Tennessee - and a regular contributor to Mimesis Law. "Lee Pacchia is the Founder and CEO of Mimesis Law which covers the business, practice and culture of Law, as well as Mimesis Labs
which partners with companies and organizations to design, create and
leverage video content. Previously, Lee helped design and launch the
multimedia channel for Bloomberg Law. From designing the product to
hosting and producing three WebTV shows a week, Lee helped guide the
project to become one of the most visible media platforms in American legal journalism. Prior to joining Bloomberg Law, Lee clerked for the Hon. Raymond T. Lyons in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey. Lee holds a JD from New York Law School and a BA from Wesleyan University. He lives in New York City."
GIST: "A truism of criminal defense is
the state’s expert witnesses carry an added layer of credibility defense
experts never see. This extra veneer of righteousness comes from the
misguided notion the State’s experts are there to put away bad guys who
did nasty things. That’s why, when a State expert
asserts his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, lawyers all over the country pay attention. The expert in question is Christopher Youngkin, a Forensic Blood
Analyst for Texas’s Department of Public Safety. Youngkin is responsible
for testing the blood alcohol content in a DWI defendant’s blood after
it’s drawn and testifying about the results in court. An email from Dallas-based attorney Hunter Biederman* alleges Youngkin is the analyst
“on probably over 10,000 blood test cases.” One of those cases was a
2013 incident where Youngkin switched blood vials in two cases, giving a
defendant a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .15 when she had none in her
body. Local police notified Youngkin of the error, and the Texas DPS named
an investigator who issued a “quality action plan” identifying
Christopher Youngkin as the person involved with the error. The investigator determined the blood switching case to be an isolated
incident, and Youngkin notified the District Attorney’s office of the
error. No harm, no foul, until Youngkin took the stand in an October,
2016 DWI case in Collin County, Texas and stated under oath he’d never
switched vials during a test for blood alcohol content. According to the “
Motion for Speedy Rehearing”
filed by Hunter Biederman on October 13, Christopher Youngkin’s
testimony is inconsistent with two previous hearings. During a July,
2015 hearing, Youngkin testified under oath he’d
never
switched vials. A September, 2016 trial saw the “Forensic Blood Analyst”
walk back his previous statement and say he did switch blood vials at
one point. Finally, during the hearing on October 12, 2016, Youngkin
stated once again he’d never switched vials during a test for blood
alcohol content. When presented with statements to the contrary,
Youngkin exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
and asked for time to consult an attorney. This is bigger than just the current case, because of the
Brady violations in play. Fault Lines contributors regularly discuss
Brady violations
and what to do when they occur, because it involves evidence withheld
by the prosecution or cops that could potentially cause a trier of fact
to not find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here,
Christopher Youngkin’s inconsistent statements are the tip of the
iceberg. Counsel for defendant Tyler Avaritt weren’t notified of the
“quality action plan,” any indication of Youngkin’s alleged “isolated
incident,” or other documents until Tyler Avaritt’s case was set for
trial, and even then the prosecution turned over a flimsy email
regarding the gaffe in blood testing..........Christopher Youngkin’s credibility is shot as well for the duration
of this trial, and possibly others. When County Court at Law Judge Lance
S. Baxter
advised Youngkin
of his right to remain silent and consult an attorney, it served as a
strong indicator the Judge didn’t think it was a good idea the longtime
DPS blood analyst to speak any further. When Youngkin invoked those
rights, putting Tyler Avaritt’s trial on hold while he called a lawyer
to consult his options, it invoked a strong sense of serious wrongdoing
by Youngkin. With allegedly “thousands of cases” where Youngkin tested blood
samples now in question, Christopher Youngkin’s decision to consult with
an attorney and invoke his Fifth Amendment rights places doubts in the
head of every trier of fact and defense attorney who had Youngkin as an
“expert witness” during a trial on edge. If what he said was so
egregious he felt it necessary to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights,
what else does he have to hide? This is a tough hurdle for the State,
and Youngkin, to overcome in the current case and others. A three-year-old inconsistency during a blood test, followed by
confrontation of inconsistent testimony under oath regarding those
tests, led to a “credible” Texas “Forensic Blood Analyst” being shaken
so bad he took the Fifth and asked for time to consult an attorney
before a misdemeanor DWI trial could proceed." This brings to mind the
musings of noted legal scholars
Mobb Deep, who once stated the following regarding situations like the one in which Christopher Youngkin now finds himself."
The entire post can be found at:
http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/christopher-youngkin-somethings-rotten-when-a-state-expert-takes-the-fifth/13722
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty
incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the
harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into
pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology
system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent
stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please
send any comments or information on other cases and issues of
interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy. Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
