I am a licensed California attorney currently living almost solely on disability. On 8/27/2009 I briefly fell asleep at the wheel on the 405 frwy. It was stop and go traffic and I rear ended the car in front of me. No one was hurt and the damages were minor. We exchanged Insurance information and were on our separate ways. While unsuccessfully searching for my glasses, which came off on impact, The CHP pulled up - two cars I believe. Without my glasses I am far past legally blind, which is 20/200. My “good” eye is 20/800 and the worse one is 20/1200. Among other maladies, I have or had at the time, are two Spinal Thoracic compression fractures of the back which had caused lack of sleep from Late March 2009 through the end of 2009 - the reason for my sleepiness at the wheel. The spinal compression fractures were also the reason for the Vicodin prescription. I pointed this out to a CHP officer along with the plate surgically implanted to correct my broken pelvis on the right side and osteoarthritis in both hips and possibly a hernia in my left groin area as well as an old broken shoulder that limited motion. He proceeded with the field sobriety test which I assume I failed, then handcuffed me behind my back, very painful to the shoulder and twisted me like a pretzel into the extremely small squad car which was extremely painful to my back. I said something to the effect,”you are killing me” and “is this really necessary?’ The words, “you are under arrest” were never uttered. I was Mirandized at the jail sometime later. This ordeal was so painful, I requested further back x rays upon my return home in order to see if more back damage had been done by the police. Fortunately none was detected.

During my questioning and testing at the side of the road, my car was illegally searched according to the recent U.S. Supreme court case of Arizona vs. Gant. All of my prescription drugs that I must carry when traveling were found in a bag within a bag (not in plain view). The car was impounded but the drugs went with me to jail and were returned to me 10 hours later upon my release, still with no glasses. Were it not for the kindness of one of my fellow inmates who flaggeed down and PAID for a cab for me, I might still be wandering the streets of Santa Ana.

I was subsequently charged with and the prosecutor filed a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs or combination of the two. My breath and blood alcohol tested at 0.00 as I had not had a drink since July of 2007.

I informed the prosecutor of all this prior to filing, offered her any x rays or medical records she wanted and yet, the case was filed and my arraignment set for February 25, 2010 at 8:30 am.

I was subsequently informed that the blood or urine tests I voluntarily gave detected the presence of opiates – not surprising as I had taken one before bed time the night before. Regardless, I am told that these tests merely determine the presence of the opiate, not the amount or whether it was taken recently or four days ago. In other words, a DRE can find impairment four days after a Vicodin is taken, especially when no alcohol is present. (No alcohol, it must be drugs) Not only must the accused prove his or her innocence, (something I was apparently wrongfully taught to be unconstitutional) it is impossible to do. The possibility of a finding of impairment by the four day old injestion of one Vicodin not only exists but is likely. This is especially true given the ridiculous and subjective nature of the DRE evaluation.- an evaluation even more likely to find impairment when “presence” of an opiate has been determined. The only thing less accurate would be to find impairment based on the suspect’s intention to take an opiate in the future. Prior to this incident, such a scenario would have seemed ridiculous to me. It no longer does. I have repeatedly undergone minor procedures under or general anesthtesia and told not to drive for twenty four hours, not four days or a week to play it safe.

No one at any disability organization has helped me in finding a lawyer and I now have a public defender, though I long to examine the arresting office myself. Sadly, I will be unable to identify anyone. This is my first offense, or rather non-offense and I am completely innocent. Though I have not seen the police report yet, if it is truthful, the only evidence of “impairment” was the illegal field sobriety test given to someone with a multitude of non-visible disabilities who informed the police thereof, and the illegal search of my car. Is there no one but the public defender that a falsely accused member of the State Bar of California since 1981, with an unblemished record, can turn? No I guess. I have no chance in hell! Just call me Dr. Kimble.

The evidence collected from the Anthonys are the facts. The docs about the findings are the facts, and the fact that no one from the Ants house can ID the Nanny other then the culprit are the FACTS. SO FLUFF ON THAT!

If you are going to blog about a story, at least make sure your facts are correct. This is only one example of the misinformation that is floating around out there… I haven’t had a chance to read and dissect the entirety of your blog, but I am sure I will find more.

I can’t wait to hear the defenses REAL STORY at trial. And BB claims to have only the best interest for his client.

Yeah, sexual interest!

Anyways, Bozo & Company can whack away all they want at the weaker points (i.e., duct tape and plastic bags are popular brands found in billions of households) … BUT the bottom line is there’s just too much rock-solid circumstantial evidence, that when it’s put all together, what we’ll see is a mountain of common sense deductions that point to just one core person, whether she did the actual killing or instigated and abetted someone else to do it.

SO, Bozo, let’s see if you’re good at mountain climbing. ‘Cause it will be a really long uphill battle for you at trial time.

Anyhow, it was the busy haired one armed ZANNY!
That’s who did it!!