Daubert vs. SCRAM (NYClex lawprof. ?)

[marcellus91872]

After researching every subject to prove SCRAM convicts the innocent,I finally studied the Daubert vs. Frye controversy and admitting scientific evidence.Thus far,I believe that AMS (proprietor) didn't appear to testify in my case due to Rule 403,which leads to my enquiry.The test results specifically on the SCRAM system that I have encountered claim it to be infallible,there may be some truth to this.If a person consumes alcohol,the BAC curve should be similar to a TAC curve with a 120 minute time lapse,but as determined by court in my case,the TAC curve was a result of an outside influence.This was not the first time the court found SCRAM unreliable in Michigan.
http://www.mi-drunkdrivinglawyer.co...lcohol-monitoring-device-to-be-unreliable.htm
Obviously not infallible,even DNA is subject to human error,I came across this:
In place of Frye's general reliability standard the Court fashioned a more elaborate inquiry for the trial judge to determine the scientific validity of proffered evidence. The Court pointed to four, non-exclusive, factors: (1) testability; (2) subjection to peer-review; (3) known or potential rate of error; and (4) widespread acceptance (a factor closely akin to the discarded Frye standard). An overarching and separate requirement for scientific evidence, even if found reliable, is that it be relevant, i.e. that it bear upon and materially advance the resolution of a fact in issue.
Convicted of an obstruction,no alcohol detected,knowing that the device has already failed and this aspect wasn't the focus of scrutinous research,should not (3) be reviewed before harrasing and sentencing a probationer?
We really need to set standards for new scientific evidence,at least independant studies to protect innocent defendants from prejudice!

 

[marcellus91872]

found it!

The Judge is considered the "gatekeeper" when scientific evidence is used,thus therefore it is entirely up to a Judge to consider the reliability and credibility of proffered evidence.
We really need to set standards for new scientific evidence,at least independant studies to protect innocent defendants from prejudice!

 

[charlesesq]

I read the below. What is your issue although I gather generally that you are stating that these tests were wrong in your case due to some external influence. Are you stating that some of these testing procedures provide a signfiicant degree of error?

A "Daubert motion" is made to exclude the testimony of an expert witness for reasons that the testimony cannot be qualified, e.g. improper testing proceures used.

For those of you who don't know the terminology, the "Frye Standard" which comes from Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013 (DC Cir. 1923) and created a standard for the admissibility of evidence and is whether a technique has gained "general acceptance" within the relevant practice field, e.g. whether a medical technique has been "generally accepted" within the medical community.

A newer standard was set up as Frye was overrruled, see the case at Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) as the Supreme Court felt that this test was more precise. It has two "prongs" of "relevancy" and "reliability." In the reliability prong, there has to be the ability to empirical test the method being used and introduced into evidence, it must have been subjected to peer review and publication, have a determined or potential error rate, whether standards exist for controlling the operations of the technique, the expert must be qualified, and the technique must be able to be described with general ease and understanding or "plain meaning."

After researching every subject to prove SCRAM convicts the innocent,I finally studied the Daubert vs. Frye controversy and admitting scientific evidence.Thus far,I believe that AMS (proprietor) didn't appear to testify in my case due to Rule 403,which leads to my enquiry.The test results specifically on the SCRAM system that I have encountered claim it to be infallible,there may be some truth to this.If a person consumes alcohol,the BAC curve should be similar to a TAC curve with a 120 minute time lapse,but as determined by court in my case,the TAC curve was a result of an outside influence.This was not the first time the court found SCRAM unreliable in Michigan.
http://www.mi-drunkdrivinglawyer.co...lcohol-monitoring-device-to-be-unreliable.htm
Obviously not infallible,even DNA is subject to human error,I came across this:
In place of Frye's general reliability standard the Court fashioned a more elaborate inquiry for the trial judge to determine the scientific validity of proffered evidence. The Court pointed to four, non-exclusive, factors: (1) testability; (2) subjection to peer-review; (3) known or potential rate of error; and (4) widespread acceptance (a factor closely akin to the discarded Frye standard). An overarching and separate requirement for scientific evidence, even if found reliable, is that it be relevant, i.e. that it bear upon and materially advance the resolution of a fact in issue.
Convicted of an obstruction,no alcohol detected,knowing that the device has already failed and this aspect wasn't the focus of scrutinous research,should not (3) be reviewed before harrasing and sentencing a probationer?
We really need to set standards for new scientific evidence,at least independant studies to protect innocent defendants from prejudice!

 

[nojaxyx]

Please go to facebook.com and search for scram lawsuit add your comments and read our notes. I am looking at going to prison for not drinking, pretty amazing. Our 6th amendment rights are being smashed and its time that AMS is stopped. I was not drinking, hadnt been drinking, I a being accused and yet I was at work with employees to verify, can pass a polygraph which I am in the process of doing now. If you or someone you know has been accused or is in jail NOW due to this faulty piece of electronics please contact us, united we stand, divided we fall.