When Courts Quote Expert-Witness Analysis
Article overview: Plaintiffs called Okorie Okorocha, a forensic toxicologist and lawyer, to testify to the testing performed on the fluid samples taken from Andrade’s body. He rendered opinions on both the methamphetamine and alcohol testing and what he viewed as flaws in the resulting evidence.
Okorie Okorocha — Plaintiffs’ Toxicology Expert
Plaintiffs called Okorie Okorocha, a forensic toxicologist and lawyer, to testify to the testing performed on the fluid samples taken from Andrade’s body. He rendered opinions on both the methamphetamine and alcohol testing and what he viewed as flaws in the resulting evidence.
As to methamphetamine test results, Okorocha said there were two problems. First, methamphetamine can come in two forms: (1) Levo or L-methamphetamine, which can be found in over-the-counter cold medicine, [*9] or (2) Dextro or D-methamphetamine, which is the prescription-grade or “street” drug. Okorocha said the two types of methamphetamine do not produce the same effects, but the laboratory that tested Andrade’s samples did not have the equipment necessary to differentiate between them.
The second problem with the methamphetamine testing, according to Okorocha, was that drugs and chemicals can redistribute in the blood after a person dies. This postmortem redistribution phenomenon can cause organs to release chemicals into the blood, especially where trauma is involved. He opined that stomach contents should be reviewed to see what might contaminate a postmortem sample, and that was not done in Andrade’s case. He also testified that the level of drugs in a person’s system does not necessarily indicate impairment, as drugs can remain in the body for up to two days longer than their effects last.
As for the alcohol testing, Okorocha opined it was flawed because it was done postmortem. He said microbes in the body ferment or convert glucose and other substrates in the blood to produce alcohol after a person dies. Under certain conditions, it would not take long for the alcohol level in a body to [*10] increase after death; in one experiment, Okorocha testified, a body’s postmortem blood alcohol level went from zero to 0.12 in approximately four hours in temperatures of at least 70 degrees. Okorocha also said that since it was hot the day of the accident and Andrade’s body lay on the road for a while, he expected a “significant amount” of postmortem alcohol in the blood. He opined Andrade’s antemortem blood alcohol level would have been “at zero or very low”—somewhere below 0.05—to produce the blood alcohol level seen in the testing.
As to the alcohol level measured in Andrade’s vitreous fluid, Okorocha testified it was unreliable because no one has been able to extract vitreous fluid from a living subject to compare how the alcohol content in it compares with blood. He said there was only one old research paper supporting using vitreous fluid for alcohol testing, but the tests described in that paper were performed on rabbits, which have significantly different eye physiology than humans. Because there was trauma in Andrade’s case, Okorocha opined vitreous samples should have been taken from both eyes rather than just one.
Regarding potential alcohol impairment, [*11] Okorocha testified he could not say to a reasonable medical or scientific probability that a 0.09 blood alcohol level would have had an impact on Andrade’s gait, walk, or mental acuity. This is because, he said, textbooks describe individuals who have much higher blood alcohol levels than Andrade’s and yet have no mental or physical impairment. In Okorocha’s view, it is only once alcohol levels start getting higher than 0.10 that impairment becomes significantly more likely. On cross-examination, however, Okorocha conceded someone with a 0.09 blood alcohol level could exhibit impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, hearing, judgment, and self-control.
P.A. v. Plaza Towing, Inc., 2025 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7402, *8-11
Why judicial quotation matters
When a court quotes expert-witness analysis, the language becomes part of the legal record and can influence how later readers understand the scientific dispute. The value lies in the reasoning the court adopted—not in publicity detached from the opinion.
Continue with related expert-witness decisions and analysis.
Related reading: For related context, read Ranger Wiens and Tanya Ortega: Trial-Performance Commentary, Investigators at Counsel Table in Criminal Trials, Trevor Quirk v. Lewis Brisbois: Trial Commentary.
