Update, 1 October. The Beacon reports the hearing was canceled at the request of the prosecutors. None of this appears to bode well for Barkus if you subscribe to the theory that no one tries to suppress exculpatory evidence.
The website www.duiattorney.com has an interesting essay on the investigation, noting how politics could affect a public official’s ability to get a fair trial in a town so small as Kalispell. Over at Rabid Insanity, Steve has a fascinating commentary on the difficulty of arriving at a valid BAC by extrapolating backward in time using the 0.015 percent per hour rule of thumb. And, of course, there is Gregg Smith’s earlier posting on the Electric City Weblog on the same subject.
Original post. This is weird. Over at the Flathead Beacon, Dan Testa reports that on Friday, 2 October, the district court will hear a motion by Greg Barkus’ attorney, Todd Glazier, to “suppress evidence in the case.” Suppression hearing are common enough, and often deal with evidence that the constable allegedly seized improperly, but this hearing comes in advance of any charges being filed — at least charges filed publicly (could there be a sealed indictment?) — which is a bit unusual.
This case keeps getting more fascinating. It would not surprise me if this accident inspired an episode of Law and Order.