- RAMSAY WINS ANOTHER CASE; JUDGE DISMISSES ALL CHARGES
Charles Ramsay won another district court case in Aitkin County by convincing the judge that the state had insufficient evidence to win at trial. In State v. Alden, Ramsay used his years of experience to successfully argue at a pre-trial motion hearing that the state could not prove his client was guilty of driving while intoxicated.
The State had argued that it was obvious Ramsay's client had been driving; the alleged driver was found standing next to his vehicle in a deep ravine, it was a cold winter night, and no other tracks were found in the freshly fallen snow.
Despite these facts, Ramsay successfully argued that the police on the scene didn't sufficiently establish whether Ramsay's client had actually driven the vehicle, or establish when any accident may have occurred.
The court, in dismissing the charges against Ramsay's client, concluded that, "In the absence of showing Defendant was the driver or in control of the vehicle, the fact that [the officer] had probable cause to believe Defendant had been drinking is without consequence."
Once again, Ramsay has proven that the best way to represent any client demands both a firm grasp of the law, an eye for important facts, and a desire to zealously defend his clients with every tool at his disposal.
If you are in need of a top-notch criminal defense attorney, contact SuperLawyer® Chuck Ramsay right away!
- RAMSAY WINS ANOTHER CASE AT THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS
Charles Ramsay has won another appellate court case. In State v. Sickmann, Ramsay convinced the three-member panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals that his client was denied his constitutional right to confront his accusers.
At trial, the state sought to admit Ramsay's client's blood test without calling to testify the person who withdrew the blood. Ramsay objected citing his client's right of confrontation, and on other grounds. The Sherburne County District Court Judge overruled Ramsay, and admitted the blood alcohol evidence in trial.
With the admission of the blood alcohol evidence, the state then used a scientifically dubious practice called retrograde extrapolation to speculate as to the level of alcohol in his client's blood at an earlier time. Although the scientific community recognizes this practice when certain variables are known, the judge permitted the speculation even though the state was unaware of such critical evidence as when the driver had his last drink, the amount of food he consumed, when he became "post absorptive," or how quickly he burned off alcohol.
Ramsay praised the appellate court for its ruling. "The court recognized that the state cannot take short cuts at trial. Prosecutors will no longer be able to 'phone it in' when a person's liberty is at stake."
The court reversed the decision and granted Ramsay's client a new trial. Ramsay expects the trial to commence sometime in 2007.
- MINNESOTA LAWYER ARTICLE
A recent Minnesota Lawyer article, 'DWI Update for Practitioners" reports on Roseville defense attorney Charles Ramsay convincing Anoka County District Court to rescind a driver's license revocation because the Intoxilyzer is not maintained on a regular basis. Ramsay told Minnesota Lawyer that the responsibility and authority to set standards belongs to the BCA. Link to article
