Tests show Steuben driver was not intoxicated

[Swimmy]

www.uticaod.com/news/x506586568/Tests-Man-charged-in-fatal-Steuben-crash-was-not-drunk

But the morons who run the holier-than-thou policy except when donna's boy is one of them were all too eager to accuse him of being drunk, without proof. Too bad donna doesn't know how to publicly apologize. This guy deserves that much from her.

[rrogers40]

Finally...

[Clipper]

That will never happen Swimmy. Don't you know that the kid in the accident was from Barneveld, not New Hartford. Donna apologizes to no person. She answers only to God and the NH community leaders. Barneveld is a non factor on her daily agenda.

I chuckle though with your post, and smile with the knowledge that "Little Andy's" screw up, and the totally unjust and privileged manner in which it was adjudicated is going to haunt her for a long time to come. What little integrity she had left has been tarnished by her kid's ignorant disregard for the law as well as for the welfare of a man he could have left dead when he fled the scene to run home to mommy and daddy. It was only by the grace of God, that the old man was not injured seriously or killed.

I still can't believe the way the case was handled. I don't know much about the law, but it seems that if the offenses occurred in Utica, they should have been adjudicated in a Utica Court. If it were anyone else, they would have been jailed for fleeing the scene drunk, and would have been arraigned in Utica court the next morning.

[clarencebunsen]

I know it's a popular topic on which to go off on the OD, but I don't recall anything other than fairly straight reporting about the DWI issue in the accident. The guy was arrested and charged. How can that not be reported in a story about a traffic fatality? The did fairly consistently report that the blood test results were pending and (I thought) questioned the lengthy wait for the test results and if there was a case.

To me it seems that if the guy has a beef or a law suit it should be with law enforcement. His arrest seems to have been made with very little evidence and seems more like a CYA move.

[Swimmy]

Here's the thing, with most other dwi stories (except andy donnovan's story), the BAC is openly published. There was none of that. If Countrygal's comment in the other thread is right (btw, i did not see that threat until after I started mine), then if the paper did straight forward reporting it would have reported the kid's BAC as .04. I found it odd that the kid was blasted for being intoxicated but no one knew the kid's BAC. And shortly after that story ran, the whole dwi issue was dropped (not explained or investigated). Instead the focus turned to the blind spot and that other driver's potential fault.

[clarencebunsen]

My reading was that the BAC wasn't released until the State lab report came back. It was reported more or less simultaneously with the case being dropped. I thought I remembered a couple of the follow-up articles referring to the delay in getting the BAC.

Any examples of the kid being "blasted?"

[wilum47]

No BAC listed, charge in the paper, CYA for some reason. Remember a person can refuse or be incapacitated to take the Kangeroo Court Breathilizer test and ia automatically charged with DWI. I know allot of people who tried to get the OD to write a retraction and they use exactly what CB said, "The guy was arrested and charged..."

When they start to get the real drunks of the road that really do the killing, then I will take law enforcment of DWI seriously.

[dgriffin]

If he refused to take a Breathalyzer or blood test, there wouldn't be a BAC number. So, have to assume he did. But CB's is the only logical explanation, aside from demons at the newspaper. The results were for some reason not released.
Was he injured and taken to the hospital? That could have resulted in a blood test that would have taken a while to come back. Was he charged on his condition and appearance? That seems unlikely, since the police can always wait for blood test results and charge him.
Was he a risk for flight?
Swimmy, would his attorney have insisted on a charge for some reason?
Also, just because the OD protected the editor's son in one case, there is no reason to assume mischief in their treatment of the Steuben case.
And by the way, how did other news organizations treat the cases?

[Swimmy]

Now this is the type of reporting that should have occurred the FIRST time!
www.uticaod.com/news/x455213488/Fatal-Steuben-crash-Driver-did-pass-some-sobriety-tests

[Clipper]

I agree swimmy! I was thinking the same thing when I read it. I was going to post about it also, but had not gotten to it yet, while posting a thread on the antics of Picente screwing with the Sheriff's Road Patrol. I steam every time I even hear the name Picente anymore, with his ongoing antics and his travesties of irresponsible support for his crony Steve Dimeo and EDGE, while trying to do away with a highly trained and underpaid law enforcement agency.

[Swimmy]

What is CYA?

[dan]

Cover
Your
Ass

[dgriffin]

OK, here are some thoughts.

Oct 5, 2008 8:23:17 GMT -5 Swimmy said:

Now this is the type of reporting that should have occurred the FIRST time!
www.uticaod.com/news/x455213488/Fatal-Steuben-crash-Driver-did-pass-some-sobriety-tests

I am assuming that Oneida County District Attorney Scott McNamara and sheriff’s officials were not forthcoming with this information until just recently. If they released it right after the accident, and I doubt it, the OD has severely eroded the rights of all involved.

“Just because Razzano was charged with DWI before Barcomb’s ticket, no official ever suggested that Razzano was at fault in the fatal accident, Pfendler emphasized.” Oh, please.

“Barcomb’s attorney, George Aney, however, firmly denies his client has any responsibility in the crash. Instead, Aney aimed blame toward a large grange building that limited visibility at that intersection.” I’m no lawyer, but I’d say that’s no defense. The building has been there forever and I’d guess an insurance company’s attorney would argue that Barcomb has previously driven through the intersection and was aware of the danger.

“Neither Pfendler nor McNamara would confirm whether Barcomb was given the same sobriety tests and blood tests as Razzano because the role of Barcomb’s vehicle in the crash still is under investigation, they said.” Whoa! There’s a hole in the dike.

“Razzano likewise agreed to provide blood to be tested nearly three hours after the crash, McNamara said.” If he had two beers, his BAC would have been theoretically zero three hours later. A person who had 4 beers and was illegal at .08 at the time of the accident, would presumably show .02 three hours later. But it’s known that a test can show a false positive for .02 and it would not be unusual for Mother Theresa to test at .02. Maybe they’ve been arguing about this for the last couple of weeks.

The paragraph about the accident scene tests is interesting. For one thing, it says Razzano admitted drinking “several” beers before the accident. This conflicts with the news article's lead that says Razzano admitted to “two beers” before the accident. Also, it seems odd that the officer at the scene didn’t write down the Alkasensor number and doesn’t remember it. As Utica Deputy Police Chief Mark Williams said in the article, “The main reason I would write it down is I’m building blocks toward probable cause. . Was it positive for impairment, or was it positive for intoxication? If I don’t document that number, it’s possible I may forget what it tested positive for.” Plus, grand juries want to know probable cause.

And now the article gets even more confusing. “When state police blood test results were returned several weeks ago, Razzano’s BAC was found to be 0.04 percent, McNamara said. Under state law, a DWI charge requires a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher."

“The only evidence we had at this point is that he had two beers, and that is not going to be enough evidence,” McNamara said.” Can’t they charge at .04 when it’s 3 hours past the accident, by calculating backward? If not, then why did they not administer a “DataMaster breathalyzer unit” test. Did Razzano refuse?


And what the heck is “common law DWI, which does not take blood-alcohol percentage into account.” A “normal law” DWI can be used to charge without a BAC, correct?

Again, quoting the article, “Since Razzano was charged, however, McNamara said he has become aware of the unfortunate impact the DWI charge has had on Razzano’s public reputation. That’s why McNamara has been very careful to avoid any suggestion that anybody is guilty of any crime in this case, he said.” Oh, please! Times two!

And McNamara continued, “when people get arrested, they are presumed to be innocent until they are found guilty in a court of law. Unfortunately, sometimes that gets lost.”
Evidently so in Oneida County.

So… Razanno blew into a pocket Alkasensor, giving a high enough reading to add to slurring, glassy eye-edness, etc, but could walk a straight line. They took him in, but did not administer the more accurate test on a Datamaster. They did send his blood off, taken 3 hours later. It indicated (to my arithmetic) that Razzano was .10, legally drunk behind the wheel at the time of the accident(.04 plus .02 burn-off for each hour after the accident.)

What do you think?

[Clipper]

I am assuming that the state police lab worked the numbers back to the time of the accident. He would surely have been charged if there was any chance he was even driving while impaired, much less DWI.

As far as Barcombe not being at fault because of the grange building, the building may have been an obstruction to visibility, but it was a KNOWN obstruction, and at night he should have seen the headlights coming long before he approached the intersection.

Then there is all the sympathy for Barcombe when he was at fault for the accident that caused serious injury to his wife and the death of his sister in-law, neither of whom was wearing a seatbelt, but they crucify the Razzano kid, when he was NOT at fault, and was NOT drunk.

Let the DA work the case from a legal point of view, not a sympathetic or emotional point of view. He is charged with enforcing the law as it is written.

[Swimmy]

Whenever you read "common law" it means that the courts devised it before the legislature codified it into a statute.

From Black's Law Dictionary, 2d Pocket Ed.:

common law, n.:

1	The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather from statutes or constitutions; caselaw. cf. statutory law.
2	The body of law based on the English legal system, as distinct from a civil-law system.
3	General law common to the country as a whole, as opposed to special law that has only local application
4	the body of law to which no constitution or statute applies.