Cecil Conner was extremely drunk when, at two in the morning he got behind the wheel of a car. His girlfriend's five year old son was with him. Less than an hour later, he crashed the car into a tree and the child was killed. He is on trial for aggravated drunken driving, and evidence has been introduced to show his blood alcohol was .208 at the time of the crash. Case closed? Not exactly. Though the prosecutor sought to exclude this evidence, here are some additional facts the jury will hear: The child's mother had come to collect Cecil from his friend's house because, after drinking all day, Cecil felt he was too drunk to drive. The police stopped the car and the girlfriend was arrested for driving on a suspended license. Having now no safe way to get home (and having the care of that child), Cecil called friends, desperate for another ride. However, the police grew impatient and told Cecil if he did not drive away immediately, he would be arrested as well. Cecil claims he told the police he was drunk but they did not seem to care. It seems to me, the people who should be on trial here are the cops and not the driver (assuming all these facts are correct). Lawyer: Drunk driver called friends for help before fatal crash - chicagotribune.com What say you?