"I'm certainly 100 percent more appreciative," the 55-year-old Burrows says about how his conviction affects him today. "Most lawyers my age...are burned out, ready to retire. I'm truly ready to go another 20 to 30 years."

He started trying DWI cases because those were the phone calls he was getting when he resumed practicing. Specializing allowed him to stay on top of his game. "Every trial I would lose, I'd learn more. As I would lose a case, I would say, 'OK, I gotta adjust next trial' and see what was working and what was not."

DWI lawyer David Burrows in the hallway leading to his corner office, surrounded by framed not-guilty verdicts.
Mark Graham
DWI lawyer David Burrows in the hallway leading to his corner office, surrounded by framed not-guilty verdicts.
A woman arrested for DWI during a no-refusal weekend braces inside Lew Sterrett jail before being stuck with a needle. In her left hand she clutches a search warrant
that orders her to give up her blood.
Dallas Police Video
A woman arrested for DWI during a no-refusal weekend braces inside Lew Sterrett jail before being stuck with a needle. In her left hand she clutches a search warrant that orders her to give up her blood.

Now Burrows is beginning to get calls on DWI blood cases. As of February, only 12 of the hundreds of cases from the start of the no-refusal program had come to court, resulting in a dozen guilty pleas. While Burrows is disturbed that lawyers are shying away from bringing blood cases to court, he realizes that blood marks a new challenge to the strategies he's spent a decade perfecting. It's time for a new game plan.

For one thing, cases where the blood alcohol level is determined to be at 0.10 or higher will stay out of the courtroom. The blood evidence is simply too persuasive—unless Burrows and other defense lawyers can find a way to keep the evidence from ever being introduced at trial.

Fort Worth attorney Mark Daniel succeeded in suppressing the blood evidence against one of his clients, District Judge Elizabeth Berry. The court ruled that there wasn't enough evidence to justify her arrest. Daniel will speak at Burrows' DWI Innocence Project on "exposing flaws in the search warrant of a DWI blood test case."

"If the blood test comes in to evidence, I don't think anybody legitimately can say your chances will ever be better than 30 percent, with the exception if it's an 0.08 or 0.09, then I would give them 50-50," Burrows says.

Burrows also will continue to use science to challenge the blood tests and has invited Wimbish to speak at his conference. Wimbish says blood must be collected properly, which means according to forensic standards. If the officer takes the vial of blood and leaves it in his pocket for a couple of days before sending it off to the lab, that evidence is no longer admissible. Blood tests that are processed at a hospital rather than a forensic lab are also susceptible to challenge.

Burrows doubts the blood program will ever go full-time, particularly for large agencies like Dallas. Blood tests, besides being time-consuming, could actually lower the amount of fines the county collects because officers will be less likely to make borderline arrests. "Just because today the courts seem to be leaning toward blood testing, that doesn't mean it's going to stay that way," Burrows says. "We don't have any definitive answer from the Texas courts whether that is a reasonable violation of a person's rights. Basically, it's going to take some cases to figure this whole thing out."

For Burrows to continue handling DWIs, he must believe there is still the possibility that his clients are innocent. "In my own mind, I want to feel like they're not intoxicated. You can't sell a product you don't believe in," he says.

"If you do blood testing, I think the gray area is going to drop," he says, then pauses. "Well, the lawyers will help them through the plea bargain process. But as far as trials, we'll start trying other cases.

"I'll say the politically correct thing: I'll be happy to go into another line of business if it stops you from driving while intoxicated. But as long as there's gray area in DWI..."

With defense lawyers just beginning to meet about blood cases, it's likely the area will remain gray for a while.

<< Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
 
  • Matt 05/19/2009 5:01:00 PM

    Jesse, Which innocent people are you referring to? When cops are forcing you to take a blood test against your will, I see an unnecessary invasion of privacy, and an assumption of guilt until proven innocent. So how is innocence protected in this case?

  • Jesse 05/10/2009 2:37:00 PM

    Look you boneheads.....alcohol is a drug. As such it is incumbant upon you to use it responsibly. That means when you're going to be consuming , DON'T DRIVE!!!!!!! Is that simple enough you self-centered party animals? Hurray for the blood tests and the truly innocent people they protect. See you who are screaming at the Hotel Lou.

  • Greg 04/21/2009 10:31:00 AM

    If people are'nt supposed to drive after having drinks then why do bars have parking lots? ;-/

  • Dovan Barvc 04/19/2009 12:10:00 AM

    Joe S is absolutely correct. People get in traffic accidents. Many of them have not consumed alcoholic beverages. Some have. Just because someone is over an arbitrary limit of blood alcohol content does not mean that caused the accident. The definition of alcohol related is rediculous since it covers anyone in the vehicle. Presumably, if the driver was over the legal limit and sitting stock still at a stop light and was rear ended by a police car traveling at a high rate of speed it would be an alcohol related accident. I have known people who after a few drinks affirmatively drive more carefully than they otherwise would and are perfectly capable of driving safely. Of course, I've know a couple of people who shouldn't be walking, much less driving. The statistic in your article that the "drunk" driver gets away with it 70 times before he gets caught belies the hysteria of MADD since that statistic would be even lower if it correlated legally impaired driving with actual accidents caused by the impairment. It will be interesting to see what a jury thinks about whether it is self defense to try to prevent someone from sticking a needle in your arm.

  • Oliver 04/11/2009 11:19:00 AM

    I lived in Dallas '99-'03. One year, I wanted to go to McKinney avenue for St Patrick's day, which happened to be on a Friday. I found out that the only bus I could figure out was going there from the East Transit Center was only going ONCE PER HOUR. That's when I told myself "You know, I never realized it's the purpose of a transit system to encourage people to drink and drive". Get real, if you can't reach an area like McKinney with public transit on a Friday evening, let alone St Patricks, yes, you're going to have people who DUI. But Dallas is not precisely the city where it's an alternative to walk for 2h, the way some folks here in Europe do.

  • Slim Jim Phantom 04/06/2009 4:02:00 AM

    So, we have a bunch of drunks being defended by a tax cheat? Isn't America great?

  • Joe S. 04/03/2009 5:52:00 PM

    DWI is a lie. MADD gets to 50% 'alcohol related' by including anyone with any alcohol in their system in any way involved in the accident. The individual doesn't have to be at fault or even be driving for it count as 'alcohol related'. The truth is that 12% of vehicular fatalities are the fault of a legally intoxicated driver. That's 1 in 8. And you can easily check the numbers for yourself by reviewing the fatal accidents in the DFW area over the last 2 weeks (and if you go back 2 weeks from today that even covers the major drinking holiday of St. Patricks Day when you'd think there'd be a spike). Just because only the DWI related make it to the front page of the paper doesn't mean it's the #1 cause of fatal accidents. 88% of fatalities are not the fault of a legally intoxicated driver. Even if no one ever drove under the influence of alcohol the numer of fatalities would drop less than 12%. And the truth is that the cause of the other 88% applies equally to the those where the driver is legally intoxicated so the reduction would be less than 4%. For this I should give up my freedom? There are better ways to improve our roadways. Don't believe the hype.

  • Kevin 04/03/2009 9:22:00 AM

    I agree with the previous posters. In cities where there are trollies and interurban railways, the DWI offenses go way down because of accessibility to transit systems. We have a constitutional right (just as many white collar criminals do) NOT to incriminate ourselves. It's called "the 5th" for a reason. If law enforcement succeeds in perpetuating this trend, let's hope we can force politicians to a forced, surprise lie detector.

  • ashvega 04/03/2009 1:50:00 AM

    I also feel a better, but more difficult strategy, for MADD would be to use its large political clout to support public transportation and other alternatives. It seems the lack of this agenda shows MADD is more concerned with temperance and a total ban on drinking, than a simple stop to drunken driving. If this is not the case I would like to see MADD support a responsible drinking event, perhaps have a wine tasting after the next meeting - with safe transportation of course provided.

  • Jay 04/02/2009 11:07:00 PM

    I'm so sick of shortsighted policies and organizations like MADD, not just in Dallas but around this country. Drunk driving is terrible, but inevitable. For thousands of years people of all ages have been drinking alcohol and going home. Pretty basic human behavior. The sad thing and the thing that we need to put more effort into changing is the fact that we constructed cities which made this basic behavior so potentially harmful to society. IF the police, city of Dallas, and organizations like MADD REALLY wanted to make things better they would throw more weight behind sustainable urban design, trolley's, shuttles from the train stations as well as longer running times from the DART train system and said shuttles and more emphasis on special event days. Instead they focus on an effect of the root problem as if it is in itself the problem. Get real. If you look around the country there's a strong correlation between places that are car dependent with few other transportation options and DWI problems. There's a fundamental issue that Dallas has to solve here before we can say anything positive has been accomplished. That underlying issue should be getting more of our energies and tax dollars. That's how we'll save lives.

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy