There are still plenty of unanswered questions about Efren Carrillo’s midsummer night’s romp. One recurring question from readers is why he wasn’t tested for alcohol. Some contend he got special treatment. Bear in mind, he wasn’t driving, so he had to consent or the police had to get a warrant for a blood test.
In an exchange with one reader, I suggested that a prosecutor may not want those results. Why invite a twist on Dan White’s “Twinkie defense,” perhaps a variation on, “There have been times when I’ve been in a drunken stupor. That’s why I want to see the tape. I want everyone in the city to see this tape. I don’t even recall there being a tape or video. I want to see the state that I was in.”
No, no, no, there isn’t a tape of Carrillo running around in his drawers in the middle of the night. Not as far as I know anyway. That quote is from Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto, another politician caught behaving badly.
After months of loud denials, Ford was confronted with a videotape showing him smoking crack. “Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine,” he finally admitted, according to an Associated Press account. But he’d like people to believe he isn’t to blame because he was sloshed.
So, in cases such as these, would a prosecutor or a defendant benefit from a blood test buttressing a claim of alcohol-impaired judgment?
– Jim Sweeney