what I don't understand is why providing the other tests done in the "batch" might have been helpful or did not provide full disclosure? I read his letter, I read what I could find about the issue online and I still don't get it. If there was something wrong in the batch, he could say that. He failed to convince me giving defense attorneys the test results of other people helps the defense.
I've been an attorney for 45 years, some of them working in governmental agencies and some of them working as a criminal defense attorney. I defended countless drunk driving cases. I'm thinking there is more than just Mr. Ohlson's side of the story. When I worked for the state government, we had people working for us who had a chip on their shoulders and did stupid things in the name of the agency. I cleaned up the messes. In a case like Mr. Ohlson's, if he couldn't convince me providing the test results of other patients/defendants made a difference, I would tell him providing the defendant's FULL test results was full disclosure, under the law.
But again, we don't have all the facts. You don't make a decision without them.
Doesn't pass the smell test for me.
= new reply since forum marked as read
