Here's another interesting local case:

A man driving with a younger woman and her child suddenly veered off the road into a ditch. He and the woman were wearing seatbelts, and weren't hurt. The child wasn't belted, was thrown from the car and died immediately. Bystanders said the driver was abusive at the scene and warned them not to call police. When told that police had been notified, he fled the scene. He was arrested the next day.

Police said that "much of his blood alcohol content had metabolized the next day," But they believed he and the woman "had been drinking similar amounts." Her BAC at the scene of the accident "was astronomical."

The guy rejected a plea offer and will stand trial for manslaugher, aggravated assault, DUI, etc. County Attorney said the reason is that he "thinks he has only three or four years to live." I think his lawyer told him that he couldn't be convicted because the prosecution had no hard evidence that he'd been DUI at the time of the accident. The most he could be convicted of was leaving the scene of an accident.

But I wonder: Can someone be convicted of DUI and manslaugher ex post facto when there was no BAC test at the scene of the crime, and the police are going only on hearsay about his "drinking the same amount" as his passenger?