As a seasoned Gwinnett County DUI lawyer with over 25 years of experience defending clients against drunk driving charges, I've seen firsthand how expert witnesses like forensic toxicologists can make or break a case. In DUI prosecutions, toxicologists often testify about blood alcohol concentration (BAC), drug levels, and their potential effects on impairment. But did you know there are strict guidelines governing what these experts can and cannot say in court? Today, we'll dive into the ANSI/ASB Best Practice Recommendation 037 (2019), a key document outlining best practices for opinions and testimony in forensic toxicology. We'll explore its implications and how it can be leveraged during cross-examination to strengthen your DUI defense.

What Is Forensic Toxicology and Its Role in DUI Cases?

Forensic toxicology involves analyzing biological samples (like blood, urine, or breath) for drugs, alcohol, or other substances and interpreting their potential effects. In a DUI case—whether it's alcohol-related or involving drugs like marijuana, prescription meds, or illicit substances—a toxicologist might be called by the prosecution to explain test results and opine on impairment.

For example, in Georgia, where DUI laws are stringent under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391, a BAC of 0.08% or higher is per se evidence of impairment for drivers over 21. Toxicologists from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) or private labs often testify to validate these results. However, their opinions aren't unlimited. Overstepping can open the door for a skilled defense attorney to challenge their credibility.

Key Guidelines from ANSI/ASB 037: What Toxicologists Can and Cannot Say

The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) Standards Board published ANSI/ASB Best Practice Recommendation 037 in 2019 to ensure toxicologist testimony is reliable, based on science, and constrained to areas of true expertise. This document applies to subdisciplines like human performance toxicology, which directly relates to DUI cases (e.g., driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs).

Appropriate Opinions and Testimony

According to the guidelines, toxicologists can provide expert opinions that are grounded in established science and case-specific facts. Here are some key areas where testimony is generally appropriate:

• Discussing Lab Reports and Analytical Work: They can explain test results, methodologies, and limitations, such as how BAC was measured and any factors affecting accuracy.
• Qualifying Concentrations: They may classify a BAC or drug level as subtherapeutic, therapeutic, toxic, or lethal, backed by references or databases.
• Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics: This includes discussing how substances are absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and eliminated in the body, as well as their general effects.
• Impact of Substances: They can address the presence, absence, or stability of drugs/alcohol and their potential toxicological effects.
• General Impairment for the Average Person: Testimony on how a substance might impair the average individual, based on documented properties, is okay—especially in the context of the case (e.g., "Alcohol at this level typically affects coordination and judgment").
• Accepted Calculations: For alcohol, they can perform back extrapolation (estimating BAC at the time of driving based on later test results), as long as limitations are noted and supported by research.

These opinions must be clear, based on all available information (not just lab results), include references, state assumptions, and highlight limitations. Written opinions should be in a separate expert report, not the basic lab report, and note that they could change with new info.

Inappropriate Opinions and Testimony

The guidelines explicitly warn against opinions lacking scientific consensus or outside a toxicologist's expertise. This is where many prosecutions falter, as overzealous experts might stretch their testimony. Inappropriate areas include:

• Absolute Cause of Impairment or Accidents: A toxicologist shouldn't claim a specific person's exact degree of impairment based solely on a quantitative result (e.g., "This BAC made the defendant unable to drive safely"). They also can't opine on the absolute cause of an accident.
• Behavioral Intent: No linking drug concentrations directly to intent, like "The defendant knowingly drove impaired."
• Extrapolation for Non-Alcohol Drugs: Back calculations are okay for ethanol but not for other drugs due to variability in metabolism.
• Dose Calculations: They shouldn't estimate drug doses from postmortem blood or body burden calculations (except for ethanol).
• Impairment from Certain Matrices: Implying impairment from urine or hair results alone is off-limits unless literature supports it.
• Effects on Specific Individuals Without Context: General effects are fine, but not tailored opinions without full case details.
• Phrases Like 'Scientific Certainty': Avoid absolute terms unless required by law, as they overstate reliability.

The factsheet accompanying the standard emphasizes avoiding opinions on "abuse or misuse" of substances or behavioral intake based on concentrations. These boundaries ensure testimony stays scientific, not speculative.

Implications for DUI Defense: Cross-Examining Toxicologists

In Gwinnett County DUI trials, where cases are heard in courts like Lawrenceville or Duluth, toxicologist testimony can seem ironclad to a jury. But armed with ANSI/ASB 037, a savvy defense lawyer can turn the tables during cross-examination. Here's how these guidelines play out in practice:

• Challenging Overreach: If a toxicologist veers into inappropriate territory—like claiming your exact impairment level from a blood test alone—I can object and cross-examine on the guidelines. For instance, "Doctor, isn't it true that ASB 037 prohibits opining on a specific individual's impairment based solely on quantitative results?" This can discredit the witness and create reasonable doubt.
• Highlighting Limitations: The standard requires experts to state assumptions and limitations. On cross, I probe: "What case history did you review? Did you consider factors like my client's medical conditions or the timing of the test?" If they didn't, their opinion weakens.
• Questioning Calculations: In alcohol DUI cases, back extrapolation is common but must be supported. I can grill them on variables like absorption rates, food intake, or elimination rates, citing the guidelines' call for cited limitations.
• Using the Checklist for Preparation: The ASB 037 checklist (included in the standard's resources) helps ensure compliance. In discovery, I request the toxicologist's adherence documentation, then use any gaps to impeach them.

These strategies have helped me secure dismissals, reductions to reckless driving, or acquittals in countless cases. Remember, Georgia follows the Daubert standard for expert testimony (adopted in 2005), which emphasizes reliability—aligning perfectly with ASB 037's principles.

Why You Need an Experienced DUI Lawyer in Gwinnett County

Facing a DUI charge is overwhelming, especially when scientific testimony is involved. Prosecutors rely on toxicologists to bolster their case, but guidelines like ANSI/ASB 037 level the playing field. Don't go it alone—hiring a lawyer who knows how to dissect expert opinions can be the difference between a conviction and freedom.

If you're in Gwinnett County and need help with a DUI, contact me, George Creal, today for a free consultation. With my track record of over 1,000 successful DUI defenses, I'll fight to protect your rights and challenge every angle of the prosecution's evidence.

DUI Gwinnett County