Frattin

[Stinger_UND]

Anyone catch the article on the Herald website?

Jury decided that Frattin isn't guilty of drunk driving.

[Goon]

Innocent until proven guilty.

[The Whistler]

Innocent until proven guilty.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/149822

Was the jury full of hockey fans ala Mystery Alaska? Or was it a real jury of his peers.

Kinda sucks because he was kicked off of the team. No way to undo that.

Anyone else think that his into picture on the big screen makes him look like he's a Zombie?

[DAR]

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/149822

Was the jury full of hockey fans ala Mystery Alaska? Or was it a real jury of his peers.

Kinda sucks because he was kicked off of the team. No way to undo that.

Anyone else think that his into picture on the big screen makes him look like he's a Zombie?

I thought if you blew over .08 you were screwed unless the judge or jury deemed it an illegal stop. I guess not....

[Goon]

I thought if you blew over .08 you were screwed unless the judge or jury deemed it an illegal stop. I guess not....

my question is how the heck did they beat this thing? I would like to see what the jury forman said when they asked for the verdict.

Meidinger testified for the prosecution; the defense did not call any witnesses. Among the evidence the prosecution presented was a video showing Frattin that night.

[BringDeanBack]

my question is how the heck did they beat this thing? I would like to see what the jury forman said when they asked for the verdict.

Maybe Joe Finley was on the jury.

Seriously, it almost has to be an illegal stop type of situation. Maybe one of the lawyers on this site can chime in. But it doesn't sound like anyone disputed the over .08 reading.

[DAR]

Maybe Joe Finley was on the jury.

Seriously, it almost has to be an illegal stop type of situation. Maybe one of the lawyers on this site can chime in. But it doesn't sound like anyone disputed the over .08 reading.

I don't quite get it...Jurors must have been Sioux hockey fans. How can you have a defense if you call no witnesses? The judge didn't throw it out it was the jury that acquitted him

[Goon]

Maybe Joe Finley was on the jury.

Seriously, it almost has to be an illegal stop type of situation. Maybe one of the lawyers on this site can chime in. But it doesn't sound like anyone disputed the over .08 reading.

I am thinking the cops had some bad probable cause to pull him over or the case against him was week.

[siouxforce19]

The article was vague. It doesn't even say why they came to the verdict it did. What I got out of it was that Matt passed some of the sobriety tests, but not some of the others. The officer on the case said "it was close" ... it's tough to say how it went down unless you were there. Interesting nonetheless.

[jloos]

I am thinking the cops had some bad probable cause to pull him over or the case against him was week.

If it was a bad stop, the Judge would have tossed the evidence at a prior hearing. You never know what a jury will do. Most good defense lawyers can argue until they are blue in the face that the intoxilizer machine is faulty (assuming a breathalyzer was done instead of blood). Some juries are gullible enough to believe this.

[ScottM]

"Back in the day" I clerked for a judge, and we heard alot of DUI cases. They're not the "slam dunk" cases some would have you believe, especially if you go in front of a jury. A good lawyer can make a cop, expert witnesses, etc. look pretty damn silly, and unreliable even if the defendant was knee-walking drunk. Bruce Quick, out of Fargo, was very good in this regard.

[Darth412000]

The other thing to consider is that the .12 BAC rating may have been what was registered with the SD2 (or whatever model is used currently) at the scene of the traffic stop. This is a rating which is inadmissible in court, but can be used as further evidence for the officer to make the arrest. The BAC rating that is admissible will come from the Intoxilyzer or a blood draw. I think Grand Forks primarily relies on the Intoxilyzer in their alcohol arrests. It is very possible that the readings from these two devices can be different.

Obviously, I am just speculating on this because, to the best of knowledge, I don't recall any news reports specifying where the .12 rating was generated. It's just an idea on what can occur in a DUI trial.

Nonetheless, it's nice to have Matt back on the team and I'm happy for him that his life seems to be on a better track than it was this past summer.

[mikeypat15]

I'm posting out of pure ignorance, but my only guess. If there was a dash video of the stop, could the jury have found that he performed fine in the field sobriety tests, and there was no probable cause for a breathalyser, etc?

[Darth412000]

I'm posting out of pure ignorance, but my only guess. If there was a dash video of the stop, could the jury have found that he performed fine in the field sobriety tests, and there was no probable cause for a breathalyser, etc?

Below is a list of the State's Exhibits that were presented at Trial.

STATE'S EXHIBIT #7 - VIDEO FROM GFCCC BOOKING AREA

STATE'S EXHIBIT #6 - INTOXILYZER TEST RECORD AND CHECKLIST

STATE'S EXHIBIT #5 - APPROVED METHOD TO CONDUCT BREATH TEST WITH THE INTOXILYZER 5000

STATE'S EXHIBIT #4 - APPOINTMENT OF MARGARET PEARSON AS STATE TOXICOLOGIST

STATE'S EXHIBIT #3 - STANDARD SOLUTION ANALYTICAL REPORT

STATE'S EXHIBIT #2 - LIST OF APPROVED CHEMICAL TESTING DEVICES

STATE'S EXHIBIT #1 - LIST OF CERTIFIED CHEMICAL TEST OPERATORS

[mikeypat15]

Below is a list of the State's Exhibits that were presented at Trial.

STATE'S EXHIBIT #7 - VIDEO FROM GFCCC BOOKING AREA

STATE'S EXHIBIT #6 - INTOXILYZER TEST RECORD AND CHECKLIST

STATE'S EXHIBIT #5 - APPROVED METHOD TO CONDUCT BREATH TEST WITH THE INTOXILYZER 5000

STATE'S EXHIBIT #4 - APPOINTMENT OF MARGARET PEARSON AS STATE TOXICOLOGIST

STATE'S EXHIBIT #3 - STANDARD SOLUTION ANALYTICAL REPORT

STATE'S EXHIBIT #2 - LIST OF APPROVED CHEMICAL TESTING DEVICES

STATE'S EXHIBIT #1 - LIST OF CERTIFIED CHEMICAL TEST OPERATORS

Thank god for my pure ignorance disclaimer!

[Goon]

Below is a list of the State's Exhibits that were presented at Trial.

STATE'S EXHIBIT #7 - VIDEO FROM GFCCC BOOKING AREA

STATE'S EXHIBIT #6 - INTOXILYZER TEST RECORD AND CHECKLIST

STATE'S EXHIBIT #5 - APPROVED METHOD TO CONDUCT BREATH TEST WITH THE INTOXILYZER 5000

STATE'S EXHIBIT #4 - APPOINTMENT OF MARGARET PEARSON AS STATE TOXICOLOGIST

STATE'S EXHIBIT #3 - STANDARD SOLUTION ANALYTICAL REPORT

STATE'S EXHIBIT #2 - LIST OF APPROVED CHEMICAL TESTING DEVICES

STATE'S EXHIBIT #1 - LIST OF CERTIFIED CHEMICAL TEST OPERATORS

How do we get this information.

[Darth412000]

How do we get this information.

It's all public record. Anyone can do a District Court search on the ND Supreme Court website. You can inquire by name and it will list anything that has gone through a District Court (most ND Districts show up here) and then click on the court case number. It will list the status, imposition of the case, and a record of information filed under that case number.

http://www.court.state.nd.us/publicsearch/default.html

[jloos]

How do we get this information.

Public Record Search Insert the name you are looking for. If you want to search Cass County you have to use the link on this page.

The Jury does not decide if there was probable cause, this is a question of law. The defense did not motion to suppress any evidence so they likely stipulated that the stop was good and there was pc to arrest him.

Also the SD-2 (or SD-5 which most agencies now use) would not be admissible. The .12 was the result of the Intoxilyzer 5000.

Since there were no witnesses for the defense it is pretty likely the defense lawyer just attacked the Intoxilyzer 5000, which sometimes works with juries.

[Goon]

Thanks guys. I will check them out.

[Walsh Hall]

The other exhibits are just foundation to admit the test result. As was already stated, reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle and problable cause to arrest would be dealt with in a pretrial motion. These aren't proper issues for trial.

If a defendant does well on the field tests, and the test isn't overly high, it isn't uncommon to get an aquittal. The jury has to answer two question, (1) was the defendant under the influence and/or (2) was the test .08 or greater within 2 hours of the stop.

The intoxilizer is a devise which is easy to poke holes in. Without an expert to explain the test the jury is basically left with a sheet of page with a number on it with no real explanation as to how the number was obtained. If the test result doesn't sync up with what the jury sees in the video there can be reasonable doubt.

[Sterling]

STATE'S EXHIBIT #8 - INABILITY TO PUT THE PUCK IN THE NET

[siouxforeverbaby]

STATE'S EXHIBIT #8 - INABILITY TO PUT THE PUCK IN THE NET

Is it really that hard to believe that the verdict had nothing to do with him being a member of the hockey team? Yes, I am not naive enough to believe that this isnt a possibility, but I do have faith in the ability of people to look at the evidence and not the person. Not to mention the fact that he also got special treatment in had this been any other joe shmoe at UND, it never would have been big news cause no one cares. This is like people saying that Oshie got off the disorderly conduct charge for the elevator because he was a hockey player. No, he got off on that charge because the state would have gotten in trouble had they found him guilty since they were stuck in the elevator. I do not remember the exact reason or ruling for this, but I do remember discussing the incident with a lawyer that I know to see what he would say.

[Chris]

I don't think it was a probable cause thing. I think being a member of the North Dakota hockey team IS considered probable cause.

Also, I wonder if they got anyone from the Fighting Sioux Sports Network to testify about how often St. Frattin practiced while he was home in Alberta after being kicked off the team.

[Shawn-O]

Maybe the blood test came back <.08 if there was one? Sounds like it's pretty easy to punch holes in the breathlyzer's reliability.

[Darth412000]

The other exhibits are just foundation to admit the test result. As was already stated, reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle and problable cause to arrest would be dealt with in a pretrial motion. These aren't proper issues for trial.

If a defendant does well on the field tests, and the test isn't overly high, it isn't uncommon to get an aquittal. The jury has to answer two question, (1) was the defendant under the influence and/or (2) was the test .08 or greater within 2 hours of the stop.

The intoxilizer is a devise which is easy to poke holes in. Without an expert to explain the test the jury is basically left with a sheet of page with a number on it with no real explanation as to how the number was obtained. If the test result doesn't sync up with what the jury sees in the video there can be reasonable doubt.

I assume there was qualified expert testimony. See STATE'S EXHIBIT 4 - APPOINTMENT OF MARGARET PEARSON AS STATE TOXICOLOGIST Pure speculation here, but this was likely introduced to lay the foundation to qualify her as an expert.

The public will probably never know why the jury found him not guilty. That's the jury's decision to make based on the evidence presented and the information gathered at trial. Although jury members can be polled to inquire as to how they reached their conclusion, this is usually after the trial and is not normally made public.