© 2019 Allbiss Lawdata Ltd.

This site has been built by Allbiss Lawdata Ltd. All rights reserved. This is not a government web site.

For more information respecting this database or to report misuse contact: Allbiss Lawdata Ltd., 303-470 Hensall Circle, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5A 3V4, 905-273-3322. The author and the participants make no representation or warranty  whatsoever as to the authenticity and reliability of the information contained herein.  WARNING: All information contained herein is provided  for the purpose of discussion and peer review only and should not be construed as formal legal advice. The authors disclaim any and all liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are strongly encouraged to seek professional legal advice before relying upon any of the information contained herein. Legal advice should be sought directly from a properly retained lawyer or attorney. 

WARNING: Please do not attempt to use any text, image, or video that you see on this site in Court. These comments, images, and videos are NOT EVIDENCE. The Courts will need to hear evidence from a properly qualified expert. The author is not a scientist. The author is not an expert. These pages exist to promote discussion among defence lawyers.

Intoxilyzer®  is a registered trademark of CMI, Inc. The Intoxilyzer® 5000C is an "approved instrument" in Canada.

Breathalyzer® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc., Breathalyzer Division. The owner of the trademark is Robert F. Borkenstein and Draeger Safety, Inc. has leased the exclusive rights of use from him. The Breathalyzer® 900 and Breathalyzer® 900A were "approved instruments" in Canada.

Alcotest® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc. The Alcotest® 7410 GLC and 6810 are each an "approved screening device" in Canada.

Datamaster®  is a registered trademark of National Patent Analytical Systems, Inc.  The BAC Datamaster® C  is an "approved instrument" in Canada.

Each Test Stands on Its Own

January 17, 2018

Purposes of this cross-examination:

To challenge the ATC hypothesis or policy that "each test stands on its own".

To identify the hypothesis as faith or policy, not scientific opinion.

To demand the wording of the hypothesis and the empirical testing methodology if it is a scientific opinion.

To identify exactly what other anchoring information ATC/CFS considers essential to reliability notwithstanding this sweeping statement.

To identify exactly what other information they label irrelevant.

To obtain an admission that this is not scientific opinion.

To educate the Court as to the difference between scientific opinion and technical opinion.

To separate the difference between a priori logical opinion and an opinion based on empirical science.

To identify the lack of empirical studies using "sampling" of aging instruments in the field.

To establish that the ATC Position Paper is not a consensus document generally accepted by all forensic toxicologists.

To introduce the concepts of "metrological control" and "metrological supervision" to the Court.

Please reload

If you are a Canadian criminal defence lawyer and you wish to learn more about cross-examination on these issues, we suggest that you visit the Members page at www.impaired-driving.com and enroll in the three online courses that are described therein. Once you have completed the three online courses, you can apply to become a full Member at that site, and if you are accepted for membership, you will have access to the much more extensive Members Only Blog at that site, as well as  additional international resources, links, and materials.

If you are a Canadian criminal defence lawyer and you wish to learn more about cross-examination of Drug Recognition Experts we recommend that you attend an online or recorded session at  https://www.impaired-driving.com/dre-tutorial.

Featured Posts

OIML R126 is the International Standard for Evidential Breath Analyzers

August 14, 2018

1/5
Please reload

Recent Posts
Please reload

Archive
Please reload

Search By Tags