GLOVER TESTIMONY IN STATE V. DARRYL ROBIN TAYLOR

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Call Paul Glover.

      PAUL GLOVER,

      Being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

      THE COURT:  Mr. Saunders, how long do you anticipate your direct of this witness will be?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  As long as Trooper Davis, Your Honor, if not longer.

      THE COURT:  If not longer?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Yes, sir.

      THE COURT:  All right.  We'll take a ten-minute break, ladies and gentlemen, ten-minute break.  Remember the instructions I gave you previously.

      (Thereupon, the jury exits the courtroom.)

      THE COURT:  Does either party care to be heard about anything out of the presence of the jury at this time?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  No, sir.

      MR. LISSON:  No, sir.

      THE COURT:  All right.  We'll be in recess for ten minutes.

      (Recess taken.)

      (Assistant District Attorney Mr. Saunders, Defense Attorney Mr. Lisson, and the Defendant are present in the courtroom.)

      THE COURT:  All right.  Ready for the jury?

      MR. LISSON:  Yes, sir.

      THE COURT:  You may bring the jury in, Sheriff.

      THE BAILIFF:  Yes, sir.

      THE COURT:  You may come on up to the witness stand if you'd like, Mr. Glover.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Judge, I don't believe he's been sworn yet.

      THE WITNESS:  Yes, I was.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Were you sworn?

      THE COURT:  Yeah.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  I'm sorry.

      (Thereupon, the jury enters the courtroom.)

      THE COURT:  All right.  Then, ready to proceed?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Thank you, Your Honor.

      DIRECT EXAMINATION

      BY MR. SAUNDERS:

      Q.   Tell these members of the jury your name, please, sir.

      A.   My name is Paul Glover.

      Q.   And, Mr. Glover, by whom are you employed?

      A.   I'm employed by the state of North Carolina in the forensic test for alcohol branch, which is a part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

      Q.   And what is your occupation there for the State of North Carolina?

      A.   Research scientist and training specialist.

      Q.   And what -- what academic degrees do you hold, Mr. Glover?

      A.   I've got a BS in biology that I got at Florida State University in 1974 and a Master's degree in biology that I got at Florida State University in 1978.

      Q.   And would you describe your training and experience since you've received those degrees from Florida State University.

      A.   Well, I was a research scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for seven years, research scientist at the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences at Research Triangle Park for five years, a research scientist at Glaxo Welcome Pharmaceutical for seven years.

      Q.   Those -- while you were research scientist at Oak Ridge and National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, what research were you conducting at -- at those two?

      A.   I was in an immunology group when I was in Oak Ridge and I was in a cellular and genetic toxicology group in -- at NIEHS and with Glaxo Welcome.

      Q.   Okay.  Go ahead.  What other training and experience have you had in this field?

      A.   I've attended a course of study at the University of Indiana for highway safety supervisors.  The course dealt with the testing for alcohol in individuals, the manner in which alcohol is absorbed, distributed, and eliminated from the body, different methods for testing the effects of alcohol on humans.  Also attended a course at the University of Indiana that deals with the effects of drugs on human psychomotor performance.

      Q.   How many years have you been employed by the State of North Carolina now?

      A.   Five years.

      Q.   And have you been employed in that position as -- with forensic test for alcohol breath in that position?

      A.   Yes, for five years.

      Q.   And what is -- what's the subject matter of your specialty, Mr. Glover?

      A.   I deal with issues related to breath testing for alcohol, blood testing for alcohol, blood testing for drugs, urine testing for drugs.  I do in-service training for a field staff; I supervise 14 people across the state who train chem analysts on how to run a breath test.  I also evaluate the analysts in the state who want to get certified to analyze blood for the presence of alcohol or drugs.

      So, I review scientific issues that come up related to those fields.  And if there are no publications out there in those areas or the areas I need to look at, I've got a laboratory; and if I'm able, then I'll conduct my own research.

      Q.   Do you also -- does your specialization also include pharmacology as well?

      A.   Yes.  In order to be able to understand how breath testing works, a key part of that is pharmacology, physiology of alcohol.  That's how it's -- how it gets in the body, what happens when it's in the body, how it's distributed, how it's eliminated, and how it effects the body.

      Q.   In your training and experience and education, have you also had studies of how drugs interact with alcohol in the body?

      A.   Yes.  Depending on what the drug is, there may or may not be an interaction.  I typically have to look at whatever the drug might be for a particular case to see if there is a -- is an issue.

      Q.   Now, have you, in your field of specialty, Mr. Glover, have you published any articles?

      A.   I've published some of my work as part of the proceedings for the annual meetings for two organizations that I'm a member of.

      Q.   And what are some of those, sir?

      A.   Excuse me?

      Q.   And what are some of those?

      A.   One dealt with interfering substances on the breath when you're doing breath testing; another one deals with the effect of heat on a blood sample containing alcohol; another one, workshop, dealt with the controlled drinking exercises.  We do controlled drinking exercises in all of our chemical analyst classes.  It's a week-long class that the officers attend.  In those classes one day of the week half of the class is dosed with alcohol if they want to participate.  This is to allow the other members of the class to --

      Q.   And when you say "dosed with alcohol," you don't mean poured on them, you mean they drink it, right?

      A.   Correct, they -- they drink a certain amount of alcohol and that allows the other chem analysts to test somebody who is under the influence of alcohol so they can get used to what to expect, see how the instrument works, and it also allows them to get an appreciation for the impairing effect that's present at certain concentrations of alcohol.

      Q.   To see how people react as well?

      A.   Yes.

      Q.   Everybody -- everybody react the same to the consumption of alcohol, Mr. Glover?

      A.   Does everyone, no.

      Q.   And part of your work there in the controlled drinking exercises, you give Breathalyzer tests during these controlled drinking exercises and wait some period of time and do other tests?

      A.   Yes.  What we'll do is test the individuals and then, not in every controlled drinking exercise but in some of them, we'll test them at one point in time and test them later so that we can measure the rate that they're eliminating alcohol from their system.

      Q.   Have you also given presentations in your specialty, Mr. Glover?

      A.   On the -- on the workshop on the controlled drinking exercises that we've done.

      Q.   And have you testified in the courts of this state as -- as an expert in your field?

      A.   Yes, I have.

      Q.   And would you estimate for the members of the jury approximately how many times you've testified as an expert in your field.

      A.   Over 80 times in the last four years.

      Q.   And that field includes breath and -- breath and blood alcohol testing?

      A.   Correct.

      Q.   It includes blood alcohol physiology and pharmacology?

      A.   Correct.

      Q.   And also includes the effect of drugs on human performance and behavior?

      A.   Correct.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Judge, we would tender Mr. Glover as an expert in those fields that I have just indicated.

      THE COURT:  Any objection?

      MR. LISSON:  Yes, sir.  Judge, I object on the breath and two --

      THE COURT REPORTER:  And to what, I'm sorry?

      MR. LISSON:  And, two, I'd like to question the witness on voir dire.

      THE COURT:  Overruled.  Court will receive him as such.

      Q.   Would you tell the members of the jury, Mr. Glover, what retrograde extrapolation is, and you may need to spell it for the court reporter.

      A.   Okay.  Retrograde extrapolation is a term that describes a process where you measure an alcohol concentration in an individual at a point in time, and then we're going to go backwards in time to figure out what the concentration was at an earlier time.  We're able to do this because we know that humans eliminate alcohol at a fairly predictable rate.  There are some variations in that rate depending on a person's experience with alcohol, but there are elimination rates that have been published for over 65 years that have gained acceptance in the scientific community that allows us to do this.

      Alcohol is broken down in the liver by an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase, ninety-five percent of the alcohol is.  About five percent of the alcohol that you consume is lost through breath, sweat, and urine.  Because this enzyme is in the liver and it -- it's -- one of its jobs is to break down alcohol, it controls the rate that alcohol can leave the body.  And so, like I say, people have measured the rate of elimination and we have measured it, and -- and it is -- there's an accepted value.

      Q.   But you said there's some variations?

      A.   Yes, there is.

      Q.   Could you tell the members of the jury, say what the difference would be of the rate of variation between, say, someone who may drink and drive and just a social drinker?

      A.   Well --

      MR. LISSON:  Objection to the form.

      Q.   Has there -- has there -- has there been a study about that?

      THE COURT:  Overruled.

      A.   Yes, they -- they've measured the constant rate of elimination in people arrested for driving while impaired in a number of studies and -- and then they've also measured in individuals who are either light drinkers or essentially nondrinkers. There is a difference.  There's a greater rate that is seen in drinking drivers.  There's also an even greater rate of elimination that's seen in chronic abusers.  We use a very conservative rate when we do our calculations in North Carolina.

      Q.   And is that rate that you use, would that be lower than the published studies that have been found in alcohol abusers and persons who drink and drive?

      A.   Yes.

      Q.   Now, how do you do your retrograde -- well, I mean, for -- you never did spell it.  You need to spell it for Geralyn.

      THE COURT REPORTER:  It's okay.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Oh, you got it? Okay.

      Q.   How do you do this retrograde extrapolation, Mr. Glover?

      A.   Well, you -- you start out with a couple of different things.  We have in this case time of the crash and we have the time of the test.  We want to determine how many hours have gone by during that time.  You would then take the rate that someone's alcohol concentration goes down per hour, multiply it times the number of hours that have elapsed. That value will give you how much alcohol has been eliminated from the person's system during that time.

      We would then take a reported value, the test value, and add the eliminated value to the reported value.  That would tell us what it was at an earlier time.

      THE COURT:  Could you repeat that, please?  Could you repeat that, please?

      THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.  We take the elapsed time.  If it's a crash or if it's just an earlier event, we want to take the earlier time in the time of a test, determine how much time has elapsed in hours.  So, one hour, two hours, two and a half hours.  We then take the rate that the alcohol concentration goes down in the body per hour, multiply that times the elapsed time.  That will tell you how much alcohol has been metabolized by the person in that window of time.

      We're then going to take the value that was reported when they were tested and add what was metabolized during that time to the tested value.  That's going to tell you what it was at the time of an earlier test, a crash, an arrest, whatever the earlier time point was.

      Q.   And you said there was a standard rate that you use or predictable rate, and what is that rate, Mr. Glover?

      A.   We've been using .0165 BAC per hour, which means a person's alcohol concentration expected to go down .0165 per hour.

      Q.   And this is -- this is the typical rate; is that correct?

      A.   That's a rate that's -- it's a conservative rate.  It's less than what has been reported in drinking drivers.

      Q.   And why do you use this rate rather than, say, the higher one?

      A.   Because it -- it -- it's -- because we don't know absolutely that a person -- a person's alcohol history necessarily, but we're going to take a very conservative rate which would, I'll say, tend to favor the final result because it's going to give you a smaller number.

      Q.   Okay.  And what information do you need in order to be able to do this retrograde exploration (sic)?

      A.   We need the -- the two different time points so we can measure elapsed time and then the rate of elimination.

      Q.   And did you receive those time points in this case?

      A.   Yes, I did.

      Q.   And what time points did you receive in this case?

      A.   The crash was at 1:10 and the breath test was at 3:18.

      Q.   And that breath -- breath test at 3:18 was what?

      A.   .05.

      Q.   Now, can you -- you've told us how you go about doing it.  Now, can you show us how -- how you do it, Mr. Glover?

      A.   Yes.  I've got a -- a poster that I can fill in.

      (State's Exhibit Number 10 was marked for identification.)

      Q.   Do you have something to -- to write with there, Mr. Glover?

      A.   I've got markers, yes.

      Q.   All right, sir.  If you would, with the Court's permission, if you would, come around from the witness stand so you can just show the jury how you go about doing this.

      Do you need any of your notes or anything?

      A.   No, sir.

      THE COURT:  I have a question, Mr. Saunders.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Yes, sir.

      THE COURT:  Will he be filling in information specific to this case?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  He will, yes.

      THE COURT:  Well, prior to that, I would like him to answer a few more questions before I would allow that.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Okay.

      THE COURT:  Take the witness stand. The Court's concern, sir, is would it make a difference -- do you need to know what time the person started drinking and whether or not the alcohol is still rising in the body or whether the alcohol is still going down?

      THE WITNESS:  The -- the more information we have, the better we can predict.  It can have an impact.  I received no information to indicate that there was any recent consumption with respect to this particular case.  And so, I am assuming that at the time of the crash the individual was fully absorbed.  Studies have shown that 98 percent of drivers who are arrested for DWI are postabsorbative, which means their alcohol concentration is on the way down.

      THE COURT:  All right.  But you said you have no information as to when the defendant started drinking and when he quit drinking?

      THE WITNESS:  That's correct.

      THE COURT:  Okay.  You may proceed.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Any other questions, Your Honor?

      THE COURT:  No.

      Do you have any questions?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  No, sir.

      Q.   That's -- that's not necessary in order for you to do this retrograde extrapolation, is it, Mr. Glover?

      A.   No, I don't have to have it.  It is helpful when I do have it, but I can still do the calculation.

      Q.   But your information is the defendant had not consumed any alcohol recently before this crash?

      A.   Correct.

      Q.   Now, if you would -- we'll fill in this as we go.  If you would do the time of the breath test and just write that on there.

      A.   The time of the breath test was at 3:18.

      Q.   Time of the crash?

      A.   Time of the crash was at 1:10.

      Q.   The elapsed time?

      A.   That would be two hours and eight minutes.

      Q.   The rate of the alcohol elimination, you have on there -- what figure do you have on there?

      A.   I'm using .0165 grams per hundred mils per hour and the elapsed time, which would be this time, times this rate would give us the eliminated alcohol.

      Q.   Okay.  Would you write two?

      A.   Well, I'm going to put that --

      Q.   Okay.  I'm sorry.

      A.   We have -- I convert the 2.8 hours into a decimal by dividing it by 60.  So, we get 2.1 hours.  So, 2.1 hours times the .0165.

      Q.   And that would be the rate of elimination of alcohol from this defendant's body; is that correct?

      A.   Correct.

      MR. LISSON:  Objection; objection to the form, Your Honor.

      THE COURT:  Overruled.

      MR. LISSON:  Objection is -- substantive question.

      A.   Because we only report to the second digit in North Carolina when I do this math result, I'm going to drop the third digit off when I do this. 2.1 times this gives you .03.

      Q.   And what was the reported value?

      A.   Reported value was .05.

      Q.   And that was his BAT 2.1 hours after the crash?

      A.   Right.  And, in fact, this poster, I have it in grams per hundred millimeters.  It would have been in grams per 210 liters of breath.  I can fix that on here if I need to.  It's just -- it's a poster that I have for using -- all the time.  The eliminated value here was .03, which gives us a final value here of .08.

      Q.   So, it's your opinion, Mr. Glover, that at the time of the crash this defendant's blood alcohol content was, what, sir?

      A.   .08.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Move to introduce into evidence State's Exhibit Number 10, Your Honor.

      THE COURT:  Any objection?

      MR. LISSON:  I do, Your Honor.  I object to the foundation, also object to the opinion and lack of foundation.

      THE COURT:  Overruled.  The Court will allow it.

      Q.   Mr. Glover, let me show you what has been marked for purposes of identification as State's Exhibit Number 9 and ask you to examine it and tell the members of the jury what it is, sir.

      A.   This is an -- an empty packet marked Two-way Max brand.  It says it would have contained six tablets based on the labeling on the packet.  It says each tablet contains ephedrine hydrochloride, 25 milligrams, and Guaifenesin, 200 milligrams.

      Q.   What do you know from your research in the field, Mr. Glover, what ephedrine is?

      A.   Ephedrine is a naturally occurring substance that is a vasoconstrictor and a bronchial dilators. So, it's -- it's in a number of over-the-counter products that are used for the relief of asthma. It's also present in some cold products.

      Q.   And the other drug, Guaifenesin, what is that, sir?

      A.   That is an expectorant and cough suppressant and it's found in the majority of the cough preparations there on the market.

      Q.   Are you familiar with that -- that drug as well?

      A.   Yes.  It is -- in high concentrations, it can act as a central nervous system depressant.

      MR. LISSON:  Objection, irrelevant, Judge.  There's no foundation for his testimony.

      THE COURT:  Sustained.

      MR. LISSON:  Move to strike.

      THE COURT:  Allowed.

      MR. LISSON:  Ask the jury be instructed, Your Honor.

      THE COURT:  I've already instructed you, ladies and gentlemen, if I sustain an objection, you're not to consider that question. Would you like to allow it for foundation, Mr. Saunders?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Yes, sir.

      Q.   State's Exhibit Number 9, are you aware, was removed from the defendant's pocket at the time of his arrest?

      A.   Yes.

      Q.   Along with other packets like that?

      A.   Yes.

      Q.   Okay.  And what is your information as to how many packets were removed?

      A.   I understood there were ten empty packets removed.

      Q.   And is it your information that the defendant took some of that medication on that morning?

      A.   Yes.

      Q.   And how does that medication react in the body?

      MR. LISSON:  Objection.

      THE COURT:  You need to allow for foundation as to his background as to how he knows what that is and what is contained in the medicine that was found on him, on the defendant.

      Q.   Well, you're familiar with that -- that drug?

      A.   I -- I am by way of doing some research on it.  I have two texts that I use, one is the Disposition of Toxic Drugs in Man and the other one is The Psychomotor Effects of Drugs in Humans, and these drugs are listed in both of those.  And I reviewed the information in those, plus the -- what I could find in the PDR, the Physician's Desk Reference, with respect to the drugs.

      Q.   And based on your reading of those materials, you were able to gain some knowledge about this drug and how it interacts in the body?

      A.   Yes.

      Q.   And what information did you receive, Mr. Glover?

      MR. LISSON:  Judge, I renew my objection.  I'd like to be heard.

      THE COURT:  All right. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd step out to the jury room for one moment please.  Remember the instructions I gave you previously.

      (Thereupon, the jury exits the courtroom.)

      THE COURT:  All right.  The Court believes it would be most appropriate if there was some more foundation laid as to how often he refers to these books.  I think he said he utilized for his research purposes, and how often he has consulted with these books for this particular drug.

      You may answer.

      THE WITNESS:  Oh!  Whenever there's -- I'm involved in a case that involves any nonalcohol drugs, these are my first two references that I go to.  And I, also, go on line to look for published papers, papers that have been published in peer-reviewed journals.  These two books are my typical starting points because they, in addition to having excellent information and summaries, they also have a list of papers that they cite, published articles that they cite within that text. So, it's -- it's a -- a good starting place.

      THE COURT:  And the second part of the question was how often have you consulted these books for this particular drug?

      THE WITNESS:  For this drug?

      THE COURT:  Yes.

      THE WITNESS:  I did it for this case.  This is the first one, when these two particular drugs have been involved in a case that I was asked to help with.

      THE COURT:  Continue with your questioning as to his opinion as it concerns his opinion, Mr. Saunders.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Okay.

      THE COURT:  Unless you have some follow-up to those two previous questions first.

      VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION

      BY MR. SAUNDERS:

      Q.   You say you used those two books whenever your -- you have a -- a situation where there's blood alcohol involved?

      A.   Correct.

      Q.   And, once again, you -- part of your expertise is in the field of the effect of drugs on human behavior and human performance?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   And you've been accepted in the courts of this state, in addition to other areas, that area as well?

      A.   Correct.

      Q.   And the drug Guaifenesin, how does it effect the body?

      A.   It is used as an expectorant and cough suppressant in cough preparations.  That's its -- for -- that's its only use in humans.  At higher concentrations in humans, it can cause central nervous system depressants.  It's also used as a muscle relaxer by veterinarians.

      Q.   Based on your research and expertise, Mr. Glover, would you have some opinion as to whether or not the taking of ephedrine and Guaifenesin, combination of alcohol would have any additional impairing effect on the defendant?

      A.   Yes, I would have an opinion.

      Q.   And what is your opinion, sir?

      A.   In sufficient quantity, the Guaifenesin, since it is a central nervous system depressant, would have an effect similar -- not -- not similar. Alcohol is also a central nervous system depressant.  When you have central nervous system depressants multiple and is present, you may get a -- an additive effect, you may get a synergistic effect, but when you have two compounds that are -- are since doing the same sorts of things, it would have a -- an effect and it would have an effect toward greater impairment.

      Q.   Would you have an opinion as to whether or not the defendant's conduct at the scene and other things that you are aware of that happened at the scene, whether or not the alcohol and velocity together would have appreciably impaired his mental and/or physical faculties or both?

      A.   Could you repeat the question, please?

      Q.   I'm not sure if I could or not.

      A.   Excuse me?

      Q.   I'm not sure if I could or not.

      THE COURT:  Have you had an opportunity -- I'm sure Mr. Saunders could, but have you had an opportunity to examine documents that describe how the defendant's conduct was at the time of the accident, how he interacted with the other driver, and how he interacted with the highway patrolman?

      A.   I heard the trooper's testimony and the testimony of the person that was hit, and I guess I would -- my opinion would be that there was something more than just alcohol effecting the defendant at that time.

      Q.   And is it your opinion that it would be that concentration of Guaifenesin in the system?

      A.   That if it -- if it was more than what people typically take, it certainly could have been affecting him.

      Q.   And do you know what the rate of dosage, recommended rate of dosage is in Guaifenesin?

      A.   The maximum that I've seen is 1,200 milligrams per day.  The amount represented by the -- the 60 tablets would have been 12,000 milligrams.  So --

      MR. SAUNDERS:  I believe that would be all my questions, Your Honor.

      THE COURT:  All right.  Before you proceed, what conduct leads you to the opinion that -- that the -- the drugs that the defendant -- the drug that the defendant induced, ingested?

      THE WITNESS:  I believe there's indication by the first witness that the driver was -- head was slumped down and there was a statement given to the trooper by the defendant that he fell asleep and the several statements made by the trooper that we don't typically see in people impaired simply by alcohol, a blank stare, kind of a very delayed response in interacting with the trooper, and to a certain extent the problems with the field sobriety tests at that particular alcohol level.  That -- that was -- that was a fairly significant inability to perform the test as instructed at that alcohol level.

      THE COURT:  And you said that an ample dose that -- that would cause additional impairment would be 1,200 milligrams?

      THE WITNESS:  Well, the recommended daily dose is 1,200 milligrams.

      THE COURT:  So, anything beyond that could cause -- could possibly cause some impairment?

      THE WITNESS:  Yes.

      THE COURT:  And here in this particular case, the defendant took ten times as much as that daily recommended dose; is that correct?

      THE WITNESS:  Could have.

      THE COURT:  Now, the -- this drug alone, does it have an impairing effect just taking it by itself?

      THE WITNESS:  Yes, it does and that's -- that -- it will cause central nervous system depressant.  Again, in animals it's used as a muscle relaxant and it can cause unconsciousness in animals that have been dosed with it at -- at high concentrations.

      THE COURT:  And it would be your opinion that if you began to take levels in excess of 1,200 milligrams, it could cause mental or physical impairment?

      THE WITNESS:  Yes.

      THE COURT:  Now, there's another drug that you're going to ask him about; is that correct, Mr. Saunders?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  That's ephenedrine (sic) -- ephenedrine.

      THE COURT:  Could you go ahead and do that so we can do all this at the same time?

      Q.   Ephenedrine (sic), is that -- am I saying it correctly?

      A.   Ephedrine.

      Q.   Ephenedrine (sic).

      THE COURT:  Is that the Bilack (sic) drug referred to?  Wasn't there a drug Bilack mentioned yesterday?

      MR. LISSON:  It was Wellbutrin.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  It's a different drug.

      THE COURT:  So, it's three drugs altogether?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Well, there's no evidence about Wellbutrin at this time.

      THE COURT:  All right.  So, you're not going to --

      MR. SAUNDERS:  No, sir.

      THE COURT:  -- get into that?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  No, sir.

      THE COURT:  All right.

      Q.   What -- what is the recommended dosage for ephenedrine?

      A.   It's ephedrine, and it is -- if I could get my notepad over there.

      Q.   This?

      A.   A hundred and fifty milligrams per day is the recommended daily dose.

      Q.   And does an excess dose -- dosage of that effect the -- affect human performance and behavior?

      A.   It can in that it -- it is a stimulant and it is taken by individuals frequently for the stimulant effect, but with any stimulants, if you go into excess quantities, you essentially start to overload the system.  And you can get, rather than a stimulating effect, you can get a nonstimulating or depressing effect.  This would have been also a tenfold -- if all 60 were taken, it would have put it at 1,500 milligrams, which is tenfold the recommended daily dose.

      Q.   And do you have an opinion as to whether or not that dosage would have had an effect on the defendant to the point where it would appreciably impair his mental and physical abilities or either one at the time of this crash?

      A.   At -- at sufficiently high levels, I think it could have an effect on the individual, a negative effect.  Specifically what effects, I'd probably be hard-pressed to say.  I can't -- I don't know that it would be staggering or slurred speech, but it -- it, essentially, it starts to overload the system when you get in the high concentrations.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  That would essentially be all with respect to that drug as well, Your Honor.

      THE COURT:  All right.  Care to be heard or do you have questions?

      MR. LISSON:  I've got some questions, if I may, Your Honor?

      THE COURT:  All right.

      VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION

      BY MR. LISSON:

      Q.   Mr. Glover, you said that veterinarians use Guaifenesin as a muscle relaxant; is that correct?

      A.   Yes.

      Q.   And was that in some of the published reports that you've seen?

      A.   It was in the section in the {UOn}Disposition of{UOff} {UOn}Toxic Drugs in Man{UOff}, and the original paper that that was cited in, I believe, is old enough that I could not get a copy of it, but I -- that's -- that's where they talk about being used as a muscle relaxant by veterinarians.

      Q.   In horses, right?

      A.   Well, it says by -- the study -- there was a study done with a horse where they dosed the horse or in horses when they can give it to them IV and cause them to collapse with complete muscle relaxation.

      Q.   Have there been any similar studies done on the effect of Guaifenesin on humans?

      A.   Not that I'm aware of.  There have -- they do have cases where people have taken too much.  They were also taking it with Hydrocodone and died from it.  So, it -- it's not what you would typically think of as a popular drug of abuse, and -- and it is found in over-the-counter and prescription drugs.

      Q.   By over the counter, you mean anyone can walk in a drugstore and buy it?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   So, there are no studies showing the effect of -- of Guaifenesin when taken in large doses on human beings, correct?

      A.   With respect to --

      THE COURT:  Interest of time, Mr. Lisson, unless you have some argument to persuade the Court, the Court is going to allow him to give an opinion unless you have some argument that would persuade the Court differently.

      MR. LISSON:  Please the Court, he has not identified -- what I'm trying to do is show that there's no basis, no basis as an expert to testify as to the effect of this drug on human beings, as well as the effect of this drug when combined with ephedrine, as well as the effect of one, the other, or both when combined with alcohol.

      In addition, Your Honor, there's the very foundational question of how much, if any, Mr. Taylor took.  The only person who testified, the trooper, who said he doesn't know if any was taken today, yesterday, two days ago, or a week ago.  We don't have any foundation to show that Mr. Taylor actually took any.  And if we don't have that as a foundation to his opinion, then it's just pure speculation for the jury to say how much he had, if any.

      THE COURT:  What about the drug that he said he took all of them?

      MR. LISSON:  He said he'd taken all of them, but we don't know when, and that's the big problem.  If he'd taken all of them two days ago, I think doctor -- professor -- Mr. Glover -- pardon me -- would say -- could testify about the -- and how long Guaifenesin stays in the system.  We don't have any evidence that it would still be in his system.

      THE COURT:  What's your -- what do you have to say about this, Mr. Saunders --

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Judge --

      THE COURT:  -- about him being able to give his opinion to this jury based upon these specific facts those -- concerning those two drugs?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Yes, sir.  Well, Judge, first of all, as I've indicated, his expertise is the effect of drugs on human performance and behavior.  He's done research on this drug for this case.  There is testimony that this defendant had ten packets of -- empty packets in -- in his -- in his pocket.  The trooper asked him had he taken any.  He said he'd taken it all, and I think there was testimony that he'd taken some that day.  It's true we don't know the amount, Judge, but I would contend this witness can give an opinion as to what the effect all those drugs would have had on those -- this defendant or -- or any concentration of these and what the recommended dosage is.  And I would contend, Judge, it goes to the weight.  I mean --

      THE COURT:  What about the other drug?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Well, Judge, I -- I would just primarily do Guaifenesin and just leave ephedrine alone.

      THE COURT:  All right, then.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  I -- I think it just goes to the weight, and Mr. Lisson's able to cross-examine this defendant -- I mean -- this witness about what he knows and what he doesn't know about it.  And -- and he's able to argue to the jury, but, Judge, by the same token, you know, I think the State should be allowed to argue that this defendant took all those drugs, you know, that day, you know, because human behavior, you know, you don't keep empty packets of medicine in your pocket for two weeks at a time.

      THE COURT:  All right.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  You know, generally, when you -- when you go to bed at night, you clean out your pockets.  Most people do that, Judge, and I think the State should be allowed to argue that circumstance in that this defendant took all that medication on that morning and it's -- it affected his ability to drive that vehicle.

      THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Lisson, Mr. Saunders says that he's going to leave the first drug, the drug that we really don't know about, along with the -- what's it called?

      THE WITNESS:  Ephedrine.

      THE COURT:  Ephedrine?

      THE WITNESS:  Yes.

      THE COURT:  He's going to leave that one alone, and the Court wouldn't allow it anyway based upon the limited amount of evidence we know about the ephedrine drug.

      Do you have anything further to say on the other drug?  I'm in agreement with the State that this goes to the weight of the evidence.

      MR. LISSON:  Please the Court, the ephedrine and Guaifenesin were in the same pill, the same packet.  It's all one pill.

      THE COURT:  It's all one pill?

      MR. LISSON:  Yes, sir.

      THE COURT:  Okay.  I -- I thought you had argued just a moment ago that they were separate, that you don't know how much of -- that he even took the other drug.  I thought that's what you argued just a moment ago.

      MR. LISSON:  Judge, if I -- I may not have been clear.  If I can approach and I'll just show you the exhibit.

      THE WITNESS:  This.

      MR. LISSON:  That's it.

      Please the Court, if you just look at the front of that, Judge, it says what's in that packet.  It has ephedrine and hydrochloride and it has Guaifenesin.  They're together in one drug, in one -- one pill.

      THE COURT:  Okay.

      MR. LISSON:  It's all mixed up.

      THE COURT:  All right.

      MR. LISSON:  Your Honor --

      THE COURT:  So, why did you argue that we don't -- that he didn't -- we don't know whether he took the other drug or not?  That's what I interpreted you to say.

      MR. LISSON:  The ephedrine and the Guaifenesin are in the same packet.  That's what I was arguing.  We don't know how much of that he took, if any.  And, in fact, Your Honor asked Trooper Davis the question.  My notes show, Judge, that you asked him, Trooper Davis, whether he asked Mr. Taylor how much of those he'd taken and when. And all he said was that he'd taken them, but didn't say when.  And on cross-examination I asked him, did you follow up and say a week?  I asked him, you don't know if those drugs were taken today, a day ago, two days ago, or a week ago, and the trooper said, No.  That's right.  You're correct.

      THE COURT:  I'm going to allow him to give his opinion as it concerns those drugs, and that the evidence is that the defendant was asked had he been taking drugs -- well, he found the drugs in the -- in the defendant's pocket.  Asked if he'd taken the drugs and he said, yes; how much had he taken, he said, I've taken -- I've taken all of them.  And I'm going to allow the expert to give his opinion as to what effect those drugs have on a human and what effect those drugs have on a human -- on humans when used in combination with alcohol.  I'll note your exception to the Court's ruling.

      You may bring the jury back.

      (Thereupon, the jury enters the courtroom.)

      THE COURT:  All right.  You may continue, Mr. Saunders.

      DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED

      BY MR. SAUNDERS:

      Q.   Mr. Glover, I believe you indicated that you were aware that State's Exhibit Number 9 was removed from the defendant and that ten packets were removed altogether; is that correct?

      A.   Yes.

      Q.   Okay.  And the two -- the drug or the tablets in that package contain what drugs?

      A.   Ephedrine hydrochloride and Guaifenesin.

      Q.   And what is the recommended dosage for ephedrine hydrochloride?

      A.   A hundred and fifty milligrams a day.

      Q.   And how much -- how many milligrams was contained in each one of those tablets?

      A.   Each -- each tablet had 25 milligrams.

      Q.   So, in other words, you could -- you could take one packet of that within a 12-hour period or a 24-hour --

      A.   It says per day.

      Q.   So, it would be a 24-hour period.

      What is the recommended dosage for Guaifenesin?

      A.   The maximum of 1,200 milligrams per day.

      Q.   And how many milligrams was -- of Guaifenesin was contained in each one of those tablets inside that package?

      A.   Two hundred milligrams.

      Q.   So, again, that would just be six tablets within a 24-hour period?

      A.   Correct.

      Q.   Would you tell the members of the jury what high concentrations of those two drugs would -- what effect it would have on human performance and human behavior?

      MR. LISSON:  Objection.

      THE COURT:  Overruled.

      A.   The Guaifenesin in high concentrations will have a central nervous system -- well, it will act as a central nervous system depressant.  There are other central nervous system depressants.  Alcohol is one.  Those tend to depress the central nervous system;  that is, the -- the response times, ability to -- for you to, I'll say, effectively use your brain for all the different things you need to.

      Q.   And how about the high concentration of ephedrine hydrochloride?

      A.   It will act like a stimulant typically.  When you get into high concentrations -- that would be in low concentrations.  When you get into high concentrations of -- of any stimulant, there is a tendency to overload the system, and the response that the body is going to have could well be -- it could be stimulating, but it's more likely going to have a -- a negative effect.  It would -- it could give you an opposite rather than a stimulating effect, more of a depressing effect, but high concentrations just don't work as they do in low concentrations.

      Q.   And how would high concentrations of those two drugs interact with the use of alcohol?

      MR. LISSON:  Judge, can I have a line objection to this entire line of questioning?

      THE COURT:  So noted.

      MR. LISSON:  Thank you.

      THE COURT:  You may.

      A.   I've not found any studies where they've dosed people with alcohol and Guaifenesin, but they -- since it is a central nervous system depressant, it would have the potential of either adding to the effects so you have two different central nervous system depressants working on the body at the same time.  Sometimes you can have a synergistic effect where they actually enhance the depressant.  In this case I don't know which -- which it would be doing.

      Q.   Mr. Glover, based on where this accident occurred and the defendant's conduct at the scene, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the drugs would have interacted with alcohol to the effect that it would have contributed to the defendant's impairment on this day?

      MR. LISSON:  Objection, lack of foundation.

      THE COURT:  Overruled.

      A.   I -- I have an opinion on that.

      Q.   And what is your opinion, sir?

      MR. LISSON:  Same objection.

      THE COURT:  Overruled.

      A.   That the effects -- the impairing effects that have been testified to earlier, in my opinion, would have been caused by something more than just alcohol.

      Q.   And tell the -- the jury why you've come to that opinion, Mr. Glover.

      A.   When we look at the effects of alcohol on an individual, we -- we see in like the tests that the trooper gave him abilities to perform the test to certain degrees and the -- the extent to which the defendant was unable to perform those tests, as he was instructed, in my opinion, was greater than we would typically see from just the alcohol alone.

      Q.   How about the defendant's actions right before the accident, and was that -- that information, does that reinforce your opinion?

      MR. LISSON:  Objection to the form, objection to lack of foundation as well.

      THE COURT:  Overruled.

      MR. LISSON:  Relevance as well, Your Honor.

      A.   It does.  I believe the first witness indicated that the defendant was slumped, his head was slumped down, and then defendant had a statement that he was -- had fallen asleep.  And the -- particularly with the Guaifenesin, high concentrations act as a central nervous system depressant, would be consistent with that behavior.

      Q.   Falling asleep?

      A.   Yes.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  We would tender the witness, Your Honor.

      THE COURT:  Mr. Lisson.

      MR. LISSON:  Thank you, Your Honor.

      CROSS-EXAMINATION

      BY MR. LISSON:

      Q.   Mr. Glover, you know that, both as a scientist and as testifying here in court, it's important for you to be accurate, correct?

      A.   That's true.

      Q.   And it's important for you to be able to justify all the opinions you testified to, correct?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   And it's important, also, that when you give opinions, that they be backed up by some peer-reviewed scientific evidence, right?

      A.   Yes.

      Q.   Okay.  Let's start off, if we can, with your retrograde extrapolation; that is, when you said that Mister -- Mr. Taylor blew a .05 on the Intoxilyzer and you went back and made it over a .08; is that right?

      A.   I -- it went back to a .08.

      Q.   To a .08.

      Now, you used a figure of .0165; is that right?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   That's the figure that you used for the amount of alcohol that an average person eliminates from the body per hour, correct?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   Sort of like there's a hose and the alcohol is coming out that hose and it comes out at the same rate the entire time, right?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   Is that always a straight line; that is, does the alcohol always come out of a person's body at that same rate?

      A.   Essentially, yes; however, when we get down in real low concentrations, they have what's called, instead of just being a straight-line graph, it's called a hockey stick, because it comes down, when it gets almost to the bottom, there's a little bit of leveling out at the bottom.

      Q.   Is it consistent between the same person on different days?

      A.   It could -- it could be different within a given individual on different days.

      Q.   So, the same person can have a different rate of elimination from Monday to Tuesday, correct?

      A.   I -- I don't know if you -- you might see it, a difference, from one day to the next.  I wouldn't expect to see a tremendous difference.

      Q.   And over -- but over different times, the study shows that a single person can have different rates of elimination, right?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   There's also variation, differences between the rates that different people eliminate alcohol, correct?

      A.   That's correct.  Males tend to eliminate slow -- slower than females and it's thought that that's probably because of flow rate of blood through the liver.

      Q.   And all of the figures that you've given depend on, at least in part, on whether -- on when Mr. Taylor last drank; is that right?

      A.   It does to a certain extent, yes.

      Q.   Is it true that the only way to know how quickly one single person metabolizes alcohol; that is, sends it out, elimination rate, is to test that person?

      A.   To know what it was going to be at that particular point in time, it would be to test them at that particular point in time, sure.

      Q.   So, the only way you'd know Mr. Taylor's elimination rate is to actually do a controlled study on Mr. Taylor to test what his elimination rate is?

      A.   Well, to do it at the time of the event.

      Q.   But to know it so you could do the retrograde extrapolation that you've done and be accurate, you'd need to know what Mr. Taylor's elimination rate was, right?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Objection, Judge.  I think he's made the point earlier that it's different on different days.

      MR. LISSON:  Not on individuals.

      THE COURT:  Overruled.

      Q.   The only way to know what Mr. Taylor's elimination rate is, so you can extrapolate back, is to do a controlled study on Mr. Taylor, right?

      A.   That would -- the ideal way would be to get multiple samples at the time of the event, the arrest or the crash.  Not having that, you could do a controlled experiment where you dose someone and measured it.  We were not able to do that.

      Q.   Otherwise, what you're doing is working with averages, correct?

      A.   Absolutely.

      Q.   What you've done, basically, is taken the averages from a bunch of studies and said, okay, this is the figure we're going to use, .0165, as the elimination rate, correct?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   Studies have reported higher rates of elimination; that is, the alcohol comes out faster, right?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   Studies have also shown lower rates of elimination; that is, the alcohol comes out slower, right?

      A.   They have shown it slower.  There -- it's not a whole lot slower on the more recent studies, but, yes, they're shown slower.

      Q.   And, in fact, if the alcohol is eliminated slower, that's going to throw off your figures; will it not?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   And if Mr. Taylor eliminated alcohol at less than a .0165, then he would be below a .08, would have been below a .08 at the time of the accident, wouldn't he?

      A.   If he eliminated it less than .015, that would have put him below -- would have put him at a .07.

      Q.   And there are published studies that show elimination rates below .015, aren't there?

      A.   There are; however, the -- there are studies where they've looked at somewhere in the range of 2,500 individuals who were stopped for DWI where they did take multiple samples and the average value in males was .018 and for females was .02.

      Q.   What was the range of values?

      A.   Range of values --

      Q.   Range being the maximum and the minimum.

      A.   Off the top of my head, I'm -- in the range of probably an 014 to an 036.  So, about a threefold difference.  Chronic abusers will go into an accelerated rate of elimination where they eliminate at a much faster rate than normal.

      Q.   If Mr. Taylor was at the low end of that range of .014, then his blood alcohol content would have been below the .08 at the time of the accident; would it not?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   There are also studies that have been done that show elimination rates as low as .009; are there not?

      A.   I don't believe that -- I realize that it's in the book that you're referring to there, but that's not been considered more recently to be a credible rate.

      Q.   Are there studies that show elimination rates of .011?

      A.   Again, I'll defer to the book, yes.

      Q.   Okay.  Are you familiar with the book I've been referring to Medical/Legal Aspects of Alcohol?

      A.   Yes, I have a copy of that in my van.

      Q.   That's a book that you and other experts in your field rely upon; is it not?

      A.   It is.  We rely on that, but we also go to published papers that have come out since that was originally published.

      Q.   Sure.

      The -- this -- this whole science began with a guy named Whitmark back in the 1930s, correct?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   And the figure that you used, .0165, actually was a figure that Professor Whitmark came up with?

      A.   That's one that he did.  There -- since something like 1935 there have been a tremendous number of studies where they've gone in to measure the rate of elimination, and those studies as far as the average rate of elimination in individuals agree with what he found initially with the exception that people who have had a greater experience with alcohol have a greater elimination rate or a faster.

      Q.   Are you familiar with the 1976 study by Professor Debowski that showed a rate of decline of elimination of .011 per hour?

      A.   I don't know if I have a copy of his study or not.

      Q.   You know that that rate is recorded in the book you just cited, the Medical/Legal Aspects of Alcohol, correct?

      A.   I believe it is.

      Q.   And you know also that -- that the rate of elimination can change depending on what type of alcohol is consumed; can it not?

      A.   If you're talking about the difference in ethyl alcohol or methyl alcohol, yes, but with respect to ethyl alcohol, it is going to eliminate it at a predictable rate.  You may be thinking about the absorption as opposed to the elimination. The concentration of the alcohol can effect the rate of absorption and that's soaking it up.

      MR. LISSON:  May I approach the witness?

      THE COURT:  Yes.

      Q.   Let me show you page 103 of the book that I was referring to, Medical/Legal Aspects of Alcohol, that you say you and other experts refer to.

      Are you familiar with Table 4-3 on that page?

      A.   Yes -- well, to a certain extent.  I don't have it memorized.

      Q.   Sure.

      And does that not show that different types of alcohol; that is, whether you're drinking whiskey, wine, beer, beer with food, beer -- or orange juice, whatever, are eliminated from the body at different rates?

      A.   It does show that, but these are a compilation of a number of different studies and I've already said, you know, they showed different ranges.

      Q.   And, in fact, the ranges reported for, say, beer and food go as low as .009; do they not?

      A.   They do.  And for alcoholics, the range goes from .014 to .036.

      Q.   Okay.  You don't know what type of alcohol was used in the study for alcoholics, do you?

      A.   No, I don't.

      Q.   And that could effect the rate of elimination; could it not?

      A.   I don't know which alcohol the defendant drank.

      Q.   Does the age of a person effect the rate of elimination of alcohol?

      A.   If you're looking at infants and adolescents, you will see an accelerated rate of elimination. Once you get into adults and on into middle age, maybe, I'll say, senior citizens, you -- you don't see a tremendous difference or a significant difference in the rate.

      Q.   Does the speed of drinking effect the elimination of alcohol?

      A.   Well, the -- no.  And the -- the -- you used the analogy of a hose and the rate of water coming out of a house.  We use the analogy or I like one for a bathtub that you're trying to fill with a drain open.  That -- that drain will let so much water go out per minute.  If you turn the water on fast enough, the tub will fill up even though the drain is open.  If you're pouring alcohol into a person, they will eliminate; and if they are drinking faster than they're eliminating, then they're going to start accumulating alcohol.  And so, once their system is -- is, I'll say, loaded up with alcohol, I'm not aware that there's a significant difference in elimination rate.

      Q.   Do you know at what point Mr. Taylor's system was loaded up with alcohol if indeed it was?

      A.   No.

      Q.   Does the sex of the person make a difference in the elimination rate of alcohol?

      A.   Gender does have an effect, and that's that females tend to eliminate alcohol about 10 percent faster than males.  And, again, that's been seen in drinking drivers.

      Q.   What about the body composition of a person; that is, the proportion of fat to lean tissue?

      A.   That's going to effect the amount of alcohol it takes to get a person to a particular alcohol concentration, not the elimination rate.

      Q.   Are you familiar with the studies done by Michaelis, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-I-S, and Menton?

      A.   Not -- not a particular study.  They did a lot of studies.

      Q.   You're aware that they have studied the difference between fast and slow metabolizer; that is, people who eliminate alcohol at a fast rate versus eliminate alcohol at a slow rate?

      A.   And what year was that?

      Q.   Say 1986.

      A.   I'm not familiar with that one.  I -- again, the studies I've read, there's not a tremendous difference between lean and fat.

      MR. LISSON:  If I can approach, Your Honor?

      THE COURT:  Yes.

      Q.   Not -- not asking about lean and fat, but let me show you -- let me show you the same book again, Medical/Legal Aspects of Alcohol.  Take a look at the table on page 107.

      Do you see that?

      A.   Yes.

      Q.   And does that not deal with the elimination rates of alcohol at various blood alcohol levels by people who are fast metabolizers versus slow metabolizers?

      A.   Yes.

      Q.   And that study shows that a blood alcohol rate of, say, a .10, which would be above .08 that you're talking about here in this trial, a fast metabolizer would eliminate alcohol at the rate of -- extrapolated out .0116, correct?

      A.   No, that's not correct.  The concentration they're referring to is a .01 not a .1.  And they're showing that at a .01, the rate of elimination would be .020 for a fast and .015 for a slow.

      Q.   And the .015 is still above the rate that you use, what you call a conservative value, for your -- your analysis here; is that right?

      A.   It's a -- it's a slower value.

      Q.   The .015 would be a slower value, correct?

      A.   Correct.

      Q.   In other words, you -- when you have a higher elimination rate, that puts somebody at a higher blood alcohol level sometime in the past?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   A lower level, like a .015, would put it at a lower blood alcohol level in the past, correct?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   While I'm up, do you agree with the highlighted statement in the full paragraph down here in the same book, page 107?  It says, "Human beings show an enormous variation in their response to ethanol as well as other drugs.  Besides differences in behavioral response, the disposition kinetics show marked variation from person to person and within the same person from time to time."

      Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

      A.   Yes, there is variation.

      Q.   Okay.  The first part of that says that people respond differently, as the author say, have enormous variation in their response to alcohol and other drugs, correct?

      A.   That's correct.  That's why a person can be obviously significantly impaired at low or lower levels of alcohol.

      Q.   Sure.

      Alcohol and any other drug will have different effects from person to person, right?

      A.   They will have different effects; however, when you start doing studies and you look at large groups, you can develop -- they see averages. That's -- that's the way it's done.

      Q.   Will you also agree that the response -- the disposition kinetics, basically what the body does with that alcohol show marked variation from person to person; is that right?

      A.   It shows variation.  I would not expect a person to eliminate at one rate today and twice that rate tomorrow.  That is what I would think would be a marked variation.

      Q.   But you would expect different people to eliminate at different rates?

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Objection, asked and answered.

      THE COURT:  Sustained.

      Q.   The tablets that you testified about earlier, what was in State's Exhibit 9, you talked about two different drugs, Guaifenesin and ephedrine; is that right?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   Now, these tablets --

      MR. LISSON:  If I can approach, Your Honor?

      THE COURT:  Yes.

      MR. LISSON:  Does the Court have Exhibit 9?

      Q.   Mr. Glover, these tablets can be bought in any drugstore, correct?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   It's over the counter, meaning you don't need a prescription?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   And this is stuff that's used, as it says there, to help you breathe and an expectorant to make you cough up whatever is in your lungs, right?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   The same stuff that people give to their children?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   Do you know how much -- how many of those tablets Mr. Taylor took?

      A.   No, I do not.

      Q.   Won't that effect -- won't the number of tablets he took effect what those drugs do to a person's system?

      A.   Absolutely.

      Q.   If he took the recommended dose, it may not have any effect, correct?

      A.   It may or it may have an effect.

      Q.   You don't know without knowing how many he took, right?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   Have you seen any studies about how Guaifenesin and ephedrine react together with alcohol?

      A.   I -- no.  I searched -- the National Institutes of Health has a web site with over eleven -- 12 million peer-reviewed publications that you can search for.  They just haven't done the studies on that.

      Q.   So, there's nothing published that shows the effect that those two -- that the drugs in those over-the-counter pills would have with alcohol; is that right?

      A.   Not in those combinations and at high concentrations, no.

      Q.   The -- now, you talked about Guaifenesin being a muscle relaxant in animals.

      Do different animals and humans metabolize drugs differently?

      A.   Yes, they do.

      Q.   Do they react on people -- drugs react on people differently than they may react on animals, correct?

      A.   That's correct; however, this did indicate that at high concentrations, that it does act as a central nervous system depressant in humans.

      Q.   If it's taken in high concentrations?

      A.   Right.

      Q.   And you don't know if Mr. Taylor took it at high concentrations?

      A.   No, I do not.

      Q.   Do you know of any studies in humans on what happens with these drugs at high concentrations?

      A.   No.  And the reason I said -- well, I take it back.  There is one study where they've -- people who have come in to the emergency room who have admitted to taking high concentrations and they tend to develop a particular type of kidney stone. That's not a study where you've dosed people. It's -- it's information you collect as a result of the behavior of individuals.  But the concentrations are so high that you would never be able to conduct a study like that because it's unethical to give that much to an individual.

      MR. LISSON:  I just have a few more questions, Your Honor.

      THE COURT:  Yes, sir.

      Q.   Is most of what you do in your -- your position with the State is dealing with Breathalyzer machines and training analysts who take breath tests?

      A.   I don't train them.  I supervise the individuals that train them.

      Q.   None of the papers that you published have anything to do with retrograde analysis, do they?

      A.   No.

      Q.   And none of the papers that you published have anything to do with Guaifenesin or ephedrine, correct?

      A.   That's correct.

      Q.   When you said that you used a very conservative rate to do your extrapolation here, the figure you showed the jury, you meant that you used a low number, right?

      A.   Correct.

      Q.   And you said that ephedrine is a naturally occurring drug.  Is ephedrine itself naturally occurring?

      A.   I believe it comes from the mung bean or something like that.

      Q.   Is it not correct, Mr. Glover, that ephedra is naturally occurring and ephedrine is the chemically made equivalent to ephedra?

      A.   Ephedrine as the isomer is a naturally occurring sympopathmetic (phonetic spelling) aiming.  It has -- pronounced peripheral actions, comes in a plant species called ephedrine.

      Q.   So, ephedra is the plant and ephedrine comes from it?

      A.   Correct.

      Q.   Is it not correct also that ephedrine is a stimulant?

      A.   It has a stimulant effect.  That's why most people who take it in excess, according to the -- the -- some of the studies, take it because of the stimulant effect; however, stimulants taken in excess, whether it's methamphetamines or amphetamines, can only act as a stimulant for a certain length of time.  And eventually fatigue takes over and it doesn't matter how much you take, it doesn't have a stimulant effect.

      Q.   That's after fatigue takes over, the stimulant will wear off?

      A.   No.  It's that the stimulant no longer has an effect.

      Q.   The -- when you talked about recommended doses with Mr. Saunders --

      A.   Uh-huh.

      Q.   -- are you taking that -- were you taking that from Exhibit 9?

      A.   No, I --

      Q.   That is, from the packaging?

      A.   No, not on the packaging.  Based on what I found in the text that I use.

      Q.   Are there studies that show the maximum dosage a person can take before you get the depressing effect?

      A.   No, not that I'm aware of.

      Q.   So, you don't know how much ephedrine one would have to -- a person would have to take before it would cause you to fall asleep or not be stimulated anymore?

      A.   There aren't any studies to my knowledge.

      Q.   You were talking about exceeding the recommended dosage, not the maximum dosage; is that right?

      A.   Recommended, correct.

      Q.   Obviously you've never met Mr. Taylor before?

      A.   No, I have not.

      Q.   Never any test -- any sort with him?

      A.   No.

      MR. LISSON:  Could I have just a moment, Your Honor?

      THE COURT:  Yes.

      MR. LISSON:  That's all the questions I have.  Thank you.

      THE COURT:  Any redirect, Mr. Saunders?

      REDIRECT EXAMINATION

      BY MR. SAUNDERS:

      Q.   Mr. Glover, the rate of .0165, has that rate been accepted by the courts of this state as a reasonable rate?

      A.   Yes.

      MR. LISSON:  Objection.

      THE COURT:  Overruled.

      Q.   Go ahead.  You may answer.

      A.   Yes, it has.

      Q.   And by what court?

      A.   The North Carolina Court of Appeals.

      Q.   Well, let's go lower then, Mr. Glover, if you multiplied the amount of hours times .015.

      A.   We'd still get a .03 eliminated.

      Q.   Okay.  So, then you'd get a -- still .08?

      A.   Correct.

      Q.   So, any -- even if you come lower than the reasonable rate accepted by the Court of Appeals, you're still going to get a .08?

      MR. LISSON:  Objection to the form.

      THE COURT:  Overruled.

      A.   Correct.

      Q.   Is that correct?

      And when you -- when you say that the recommended dosage taken -- or the drugs taken in excess fatigue sets and eventually the person goes to sleep?

      A.   Eventually.

      Q.   Now -- and that's as a result of the drug that they took?

      A.   It's a result of -- of being able to stay essentially up for an extended length of time without getting rest when you're -- the stimulant is taken and you get to a point where you absolutely have to have rest and the stimulant doesn't have an effect then.

      Q.   And that can happen when you're driving a 2,000-pound automobile down the highway?

      A.   Correct.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  That's all I have.

      MR. LISSON:  Just a few follow-ups, if I might, Your Honor.

      RECROSS-EXAMINATION

      BY MR. LISSON:

      Q.   Mr. Glover, do you know when Mr. Taylor last slept before this accident?

      A.   No, I do not.

      Q.   Is that something you would need to know before you can say that the stimulant effect of the ephedrine had worn off?

      A.   I'm not saying that it had.  I'm saying that it will eventually if a person doesn't rest.

      Q.   And that's assuming he'd taken any of it that day, right?

      A.   That's correct.

      MR. LISSON:  If I can approach?

      THE COURT:  Yes.

      Q.   If you reduce your .0165, which is shown on State's Exhibit 10, to .014, what happens to the blood alcohol level at the time of the crash?

      A.   Then we would have a .07.

      MR. LISSON:  That's all, Your Honor.

      THE COURT:  Mr. Saunders?

      REDIRECT EXAMINATION

      BY MR. SAUNDERS:

      Q.   In other words, if you get it down low enough, the defendant won't be impaired?

      MR. LISSON:  Objection.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  That's all.

      THE COURT:  Sustained.

      All right.  You may step down.

      MR. SAUNDERS:  Your Honor, may Mr. Glover be excused?

      THE COURT:  Any objection?

      MR. LISSON:  No, sir.

      THE COURT:  He may.