Severe Thunderstorm Watch issued February 24 at 4:43PM EST expiring February 24 at 10:00PM EST in effect for: Bartholomew, Boone, Brown, Carroll, Clay, Clinton, Daviess, Decatur, Delaware, Fountain, Greene, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Henry, Howard, Jackson, Jennings, Johnson, Knox, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Martin, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Owen, Parke, Putnam, Randolph, Rush, Shelby, Sullivan, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Vigo
Severe Thunderstorm Watch issued February 24 at 3:49PM EST expiring February 24 at 10:00PM EST in effect for: Adams, Allen, Blackford, Cass, De Kalb, Elkhart, Fulton, Grant, Huntington, Jay, Kosciusko, Lagrange, Marshall, Miami, Noble, Pulaski, Steuben, Wabash, Wells, White, Whitley
A new fight has surfaced regarding evidence that Metro police officer David Bisard was drunk at the time of a deadly crash.
Bisard's legal team has asked the Indiana Supreme Court to weigh in on whether blood evidence can be used to prosecute him on drunk driving and reckless homicide charges.
Five weeks ago, the Court of Appeals ruled that Bisard's blood alcohol test, which tested at more than twice the legal limit, was admissible at trial.
Bisard's attorneys allege the Court of Appeals overstepped its authority by re-weighing evidence already ruled on by the trial court, saying that the court substituted its own judgment in the case and misinterpreted prior appeals court rulings in similar cases.
Bisard's petition argues that his blood was drawn at a non-hospital facility by a person who not only lacked the legislative authority to do so, but who also failed to follow proper protocol.
"Statically, the Supreme Court allows very few cases for transfer, but you just never know," said Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry. "This is an important issue and there has been significant debate for two years. But we'll have to feel the Court of Appeals again addressed the issues we felt were important, and we're confident that we have a prevailing argument."
The Court of Appeals ruled that even though the technician lacked the proper credentials, she was qualified to draw blood and that she generally followed medical protocol.
"The Court of Appeals has issued a decision in every case it has too. They try to set policy for the state," said IU law professor Joel Schumm. "So, if the Court of Appeals decision is potentially in conflict with another Court of Appeals case, again, that's why the Supreme Court is going to take it."
John Kautzman, Bisard's lead attorney, declined comment on the case.
The Supreme Court will review the facts of the case and could decide to hear oral arguments and then render an opinion, or it could decline to accept the case at all.
If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, a trial date could be set for early next year.