Tarr Jury Sequestered During Deliberation

Judge Jack Robison informed the jury he believed the case would be handed over to them sometime Wednesday for deliberation.

Correction: We were notified that the prosecution did not request the sequestration of the jury.

By Terra Rivers, and Cristina Carreon

NOTE: The jury started their deliberations late this afternoon and verdict could come at anytime. 

Dr. Thomas Pittman, toxicology specialist, was called to the witness stand Tuesday in the State of Texas vs. Jason Tarr.

Judge Robison said at jury selection that burden of proof rested on the state, but the defense pulled out a key technical witness to spurn the blood alcohol test used on Buda realtor Jason Tarr, saying the blood control being synthetic, and unreliable.

The defense dragged out the case as Dr. Pittman, the last witness called yesterday at trial and brought forward again, was examined for over three hours on topics ranging from blood alcohol content, submission paperwork from Texas State Trooper Kevin Lashlee, as well as surveillance.

If trends in calibration cannot be verified, blood alcohol content limits cannot be ascertained, according to Dr. Pittman, “controls should be verified for the test to be reliable.”

The defense also called into question Department of Public Safety practices, saying the limit for Texas – the lowest concentration you can actually identify – is not definitive, and does not have quantitative value.

“According to maintenance records, the DPS has had some issues where someone would come in and replace parts, ceramic parts that would get dirty, which makes the detector stop functioning as it normally does. There have been cases of maintenance issues,” Pittman said.

Under Texas penal code, the state defines intoxication as not having normal use of mental or physical abilities due to alcohol, controlled substances, or a combination of both, and having a BAC of 0.08 or more. Tarr’s blood alcohol content was recorded as 0.077 (On Wednesday, Dr. Pittman testified that this calculation had been calculated incorrectly).

“The matrix (used for the test) is cold blood, something about that blood interferes. By running water controls, it won’t show matrix effect. A true matrix like blood may affect the amount that comes out, internal and other. Using synthetic blood is one of worst samples to use for any type of testing, drugs, alcohol,” Pittman said.

After Dr. Pittman’s testimony, the prosecution called a rebuttal witness, forensic scientist Anna Mudd with DPS. Mudd testified against Dr. Pittman’s testimony and performed the calculations done by the machine at the time of testing by hand. The prosecution offered the document with her calculations into evidence afterward.

The court session ended at 5:00 p.m. and was scheduled to resume at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday morning.

Judge Jack Robison informed the jury he believed the case would be handed over to them sometime Wednesday for deliberation.

Judge Robison said once deliberation begins, the jurors will not be allowed to separate; if a verdict is not reached by 8 p.m., the jury will be sequestered and provided accommodations at a local hotel or motel for the night. Jurors were advised to bring an “overnight” bag when they reported for court in the morning.

Read more on State of Texas vs. Jason Floyd Tarr


 

Related Articles

2 Comments

  1. Jason Tarrs recorded blood alcohol level was .103 not .0777 like this article states. On May 10 under oath Doctor Pittman admitted he had not added the math correctly when he independently came up with the BAC number .0777. Doctor Pittman is a paid special witness for the defense. Is it surprising that the specialist who gets paid more if the defense wins would accidentally add the numbers incorectly. If the prosecution had not discovered Pittmans calculations where incorrect he would have conveniently proven his client was not guilty of DWI

    1. Yes, he did state that. Thank you for the pointing it out. It was located in the notes on today’s proceedings but regrettably overlooked and lost within the rest of the math presented by the expert witnesses’ rebuttals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button