It's next to the third paragraph under "Related links." Whether she was guilty or not is irrelevant.
What is relavant is that the jury heard the whole story and convicted her on all counts.
You appear to consider her lawyer's version of the event to be more credible than the police's version. The jury disagreed and they would likely have had much more information to base their opinions on and would have been able to listen to the people involved explain their sides of the event.
To me, that's a lot more relavant than what the person who is trying to sue the police department's lawyer says.
Not in the eyes of a jury.
I think it's relevant. Even though you were crowing about her passing her sobriety tests, her blood alcohol was over the limit.
The fact that she was resisting arrest is irrelevant? That makes a lot of sense.
Whether she was guilty or not is COMPLETELY relevent.