Without such international standard certifications, California DUI defense lawyers have been fairly challenging the present method of blood alcohol level estimate analysis as not being sound scientifically.
California DUI juries can acquit folks of drunk driving charges instead of finding them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the notion that the California DUI prosecution team is not using the best science available in this world.
California County DUI laboratories which are not so certified face the risk of being exposed at jury trial, attorneys remind.
Challenging California drunk driving evidence depends on many complicated factors. Exposing laboratories is not cheap, say San Diego DUI lawyers.
Here's what ASCLD said a few years ago in reviewing historical practices of laboratories:
Review of Historical Activities of Forensic Laboratories
Care must be taken reviewing the historical practices of forensic laboratories while looking through the lens of a 2010 quality system and analytical practices. The Report reviewed reporting practices of the SBICL between 1987 and 2003 and was critical of those practices during that time frame.
The forensic science community has developed quality assurance standards to examine, review and improve the quality of work performed within laboratories offering forensic services. These standards are continually updated and improved and have become increasingly more stringent over the years, ensuring robust quality systems in forensic laboratories.
Through conscious, ongoing efforts the reporting requirements for ASCLD/
accredited forensic science laboratories have evolved to become more specific
and rigorous. For example, in 1993, the ASCLD/ LAB
standard for reporting was:
“Conclusions reported must fall within the range of acceptable opinions of knowledgeable individuals in the field of forensic science or be supported by sufficient scientific data.”
In 2010, the ASCLD/
standard for reporting is:
“Written reports must be generated for all analytical work performed on evidence by the laboratory and must contain the conclusions and opinions that address the purpose for which the analytical work was undertaken. The significance of associations made must be communicated clearly and qualified properly. The name of the author(s) must appear in the report.”