The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

67° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    ‘Hot Sauce’ out of hot water

    Former UA basketball player Hassan Adams was found not guilty on two charges of driving under the influence by a six-member jury yesterday in Tucson City Court. Adams managed a slight smile and shook hands with his attorney Stephen Paul Barnard after judge Margarita Bernal read the verdict.

    Adams did, however, accept a $250 fine for a speeding ticket in conjunction with the incident on March 5, when the Chevy HHR Adams was driving was pulled over at 12:25 a.m.

    “”He was very, very pleased,”” Barnard said of Adams, who was not made available for comment. “”He was almost trembling he was so happy about the outcome, and what he wants to do now is get this behind him and go on with his life.””

    The jury deliberated from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m on Tuesday and again from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. yesterday before reaching a verdict. The three jurors who stayed to speak to the media said the jury was settled on the charge of driving while impaired but needed more time to deliberate about the charge of driving over the legal blood-alcohol limit of 0.08.

    The jury asked and was granted a recording of the testimony of defense witness Mark Stoltman, who jurors said was the key witness in the case.

    Stoltman, a forensic scientist and criminologist who previously worked for the Phoenix Crime Lab and is now self-employed, testified that the Intoxilyzer used to measure Adams’ alcohol level at 0.12 could possibly be inaccurate based on breathing patterns, air temperature, absorption level in the body and other factors.

    “”We definitely think that was a critical part of the testimony,”” said juror Jon Pyle, the owner of two Quizno’s sandwich shops. “”There was a lot of technical stuff, and we wanted to make sure we had it correct.””

    Kirsten Larsen, foreman of the jury and a financial assistant at Planned Parenthood, said the decision came down to the state not providing enough evidence to refute the expert testimony.

    Barnard also said Stoltman’s testimony was important to the case.

    “”I think that’s the most difficult part of any DUI case because people have a tendency to believe that since it’s a machine, it’s giving you the right answer, so that really is something that has to be confronted in any DUI case, and I don’t see how you can do that without an expert,”” he said.

    More to Discover
    Activate Search