Defense Attorney Thomas Burns called Dr. Fran Gengo to testify this morning in the DWI case of Ronald Wendt. The expert witness answered basic questions from both Burns and Assistant District Attorney Kevin Finnell about his background, education and medical experience.
Gengo is a clinical pharmacologist at the DENT Neurological Institute and currently serves as an associate professor of Pharmacy and Neurology and a clinical assistant professor of Neurosurgery at the SUNYAB School of Medicine. He now practices neuropharmacology research and pharmacotherapy.
During his initial testimony, Burns asked Gengo to relay to his expertise concerning alcohol in the body, as well as his knowledge of the breathylizer he was experienced in using.
Gengo testified to analyzing breathylizer results and making use of the data for many years. He also informed the court that he took what he believed to be was the same training that police officers take to become certified in giving a breathlyizer test.
Since Gengo is not a government or law enforcement official, he could not take the exact training that police officers do. However, he did say that the training was administered by a former police officer and the curriculum and manuals were the same.
A debate between the prosecution and the defense arose when Burns questioned Gengo about his knowledge of a variance in the results of the DataMaster test, which gauges blood-alcohol level or BAC.
Gengo said he had no designated training specifically in the DataMaster, but based on his reasearch and scientific knowledge, he maintained that scientists generally accept a variance in the DataMaster, and that the mechanism is not 100-percent accurate.
Finnell argued that this testimony should not be used because Gengo has not had any training in that specific device. But Judge Robert Noonan allowed the testimony, saying the witness was more than capable of having that knowledge based on his scientific background and general understanding of science.
NOTE: Juror #1 was excused due to illness and it was determined that he/she would not be available within the next few days. Substitute Juror #1 replaced Juror #1.
