- 01.
Not undated boilerplate: the multi-state source-code litigation record (including State v. Chun) is source-linked, so the citation is one you can verify before you file. Seven states (FL, MA, NJ, LA, MN, TN, AZ) have a record of source-code-disclosure orders or due-process rulings on breath instruments.
- 02.
Many courts treat the breath result as conclusive without demanding the underlying calibration / source-code record.
- 03.
The multi-state litigation record documents that prior software versions cannot be reliably reconstructed, a foundational-reliability fact most defenders never get into the record.
The controlling authority this template is built on.
Before you buy, see the spine of the deliverable. Verbatim quotes are reproduced word for word from the opinion they cite; any attributed summary is labelled as a summary, never dressed up as a quote. Each entry links to its source so you can confirm it yourself. Nothing is paraphrased into a citation it does not support.
- Lead controlling authoritySummary of source, not a verbatim quote
The buffer overflow defect must be corrected in all forms of software, because the defect causes some breath test results to produce an incorrect reading. The Court also requested that catastrophic error detection be re-enabled to ensure accuracy.
- Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“The Office of Alcohol Testing had intentionally withheld from prosecutors 432 worksheets showing failed calibration tests, despite a court order that they produce the records.”
- Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“As prosecutors, we must have confidence in the integrity of the evidence we present in court.”
- Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“As a matter of public safety, the Alcotest should be suspended from use until the software has been reviewed against an acceptable set of software development standards, and recoded and tested if necessary.”
Provenance: every citation above carries a source URL that was fetched and confirmed reachable when the template was authored. A citation without a working source URL does not ship. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to circuit-specific precedent and the facts of the case before filing.
Order intake.
Frequently asked questions.
What does the brief contain?
Seven sections: cover (your case identifier + jurisdiction stamped on), reliability standard recap (Daubert v. Merrell Dow factors), the lead authority's verbatim finding with source URL, the cumulative-error history with cited exonerations / IG audits / appellate opinions, recommended FRE 702 motion language (~250 words editable), a 10-15 question cross-examination question bank, and the methods + source URLs bibliography.
Is this legal advice?
No. The template is a research artifact modeled on the published critique literature for this discipline. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to the controlling circuit's FRE 702 doctrine and the facts of the case before filing.
How fast is delivery?
Stripe checkout completes in seconds; the PDF is emailed to the address you provide. Templates are pre-built, there is no per-case data pipeline running.
Do you cite anything I cannot independently verify?
No. Every citation in every brief carries a source URL stored alongside. Lead authorities are PCAST 2016, NAS 2009 / 2014, NRC 1979 / 2003, FBI/DOJ 2015. All are public-domain and linked to their original publication pages.
Refund policy?
7-day full refund, no questions asked.