SCRAM: The Power of a Signature?
Today even in Daubert states, lawyers are not allowed to challenge a BrAC reading with the partition ratio, knowing that nearly every read on a PBT is erroneous plus or minus due to this factor, the legal community has adopted 2100:1 as legally accepted. The "gatekeeper's" mind has been made, which now holds true in SCRAM cases in some Texas courts, observe:
"We do use the SCRAM device in Parker County. It is mainly used as a probation condition and not as a condition of bond. In terms of proving it up--as a condition of any plea the Defendant and their counsel have to sign the following stipulation: STIPULATION RELATING TO ADMISSIBILITY OF SECURE CONTINUOUS REMOTE ALCOHOL MONITORCOME NOW the State of Texas, by and through her undersigned Assistant District Attorney, and the Defendant, XXXXXXXXXX, both personally and as represented by the counsel of her choosing, XXXXXXXXXX, and present this Stipulation Relating to Admissibility of Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor as follows:
1. Both parties agree that for expert testimony to be valid, that Texas Rule of Evidence 702 requires that three prerequisites be met:
a. the witness must be qualified;
b. the proposed testimony must be grounded in scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge; and
c. the testimony must assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence admitted at trial or determining a fact in issue.
2. With respect to the first component, that the witness must be qualified, both parties stipulate and agree that the director of the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) program is a qualified witness to present expert testimony relating to said program and not to object to evidence of the SCRAM program on this basis.
3. With respect to the third component, that the testimony must assist the trier of fact, both parties stipulate and agree that said testimony would assist the trier of fact in determining a fact at issue, namely whether the Defendant has engaged in the use of alcohol in violation of his conditions of community supervision and do not object to evidence on the SCRAM program on this basis.
4. With respect to the second component, that the proposed testimony must be grounded in scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, the parties stipulate and agree that for such evidence to be admissible a showing by clear and convincing evidence must be met that:
a. The underlying scientific theory is valid;
b. The technique applying the theory is valid; andc. The technique was properly applied on the occasion in question.
5. Both parties stipulate and agree that the underlying scientific theory of the SCRAM Program has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and do not object to admissibility of the SCRAM program on this basis.
6. Both parties stipulate and agree that the technique applying the underlying scientific theory of the SCRAM program has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and do not object to admissibility of the SCRAM Program on this basis.
7. The parties have not reached an agreement as to whether or not the technique applying the underlying theory of the SCRAM program was applied properly on any occasion in question. The parties agree that the State of Texas must present proof by clear and convincing evidence on this element.
8. The parties have reached an agreement that this stipulation shall be admissible and binding upon the parties in all future proceedings, including, but not limited to, administrative reviews, motions to revoke, motions to adjudicate, appeals, writs, and all other legal proceedings in this cause.
Signed on December 4, 2007.______________________________ XXXXXXXXXX, Attorney for Defendant______________________________Defendant XXXXXXXXX______________________________Robert S. DuBoiseAssistant District AttorneyApproved by the Court on December 4, 2007.__________________________PRESIDING JUDGE "
Challenging the science is not admissable most likely because this prosecuter rather win than find the truth. Should a signature of a defendant give the legal community the right to turn a blind eye, ignore historical cases that set precedents for a more effective system and abolish Constitutional Rights? One is supposed to have the right to challenge their accuser, in these cases it is SCRAM.
Reference:
http://tdcaa.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=347098965&f=157098965&m=6851076951
"Unthinkable respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth"
Albert Einstein
"We do use the SCRAM device in Parker County. It is mainly used as a probation condition and not as a condition of bond. In terms of proving it up--as a condition of any plea the Defendant and their counsel have to sign the following stipulation: STIPULATION RELATING TO ADMISSIBILITY OF SECURE CONTINUOUS REMOTE ALCOHOL MONITORCOME NOW the State of Texas, by and through her undersigned Assistant District Attorney, and the Defendant, XXXXXXXXXX, both personally and as represented by the counsel of her choosing, XXXXXXXXXX, and present this Stipulation Relating to Admissibility of Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor as follows:
1. Both parties agree that for expert testimony to be valid, that Texas Rule of Evidence 702 requires that three prerequisites be met:
a. the witness must be qualified;
b. the proposed testimony must be grounded in scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge; and
c. the testimony must assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence admitted at trial or determining a fact in issue.
2. With respect to the first component, that the witness must be qualified, both parties stipulate and agree that the director of the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) program is a qualified witness to present expert testimony relating to said program and not to object to evidence of the SCRAM program on this basis.
3. With respect to the third component, that the testimony must assist the trier of fact, both parties stipulate and agree that said testimony would assist the trier of fact in determining a fact at issue, namely whether the Defendant has engaged in the use of alcohol in violation of his conditions of community supervision and do not object to evidence on the SCRAM program on this basis.
4. With respect to the second component, that the proposed testimony must be grounded in scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, the parties stipulate and agree that for such evidence to be admissible a showing by clear and convincing evidence must be met that:
a. The underlying scientific theory is valid;
b. The technique applying the theory is valid; andc. The technique was properly applied on the occasion in question.
5. Both parties stipulate and agree that the underlying scientific theory of the SCRAM Program has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and do not object to admissibility of the SCRAM program on this basis.
6. Both parties stipulate and agree that the technique applying the underlying scientific theory of the SCRAM program has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and do not object to admissibility of the SCRAM Program on this basis.
7. The parties have not reached an agreement as to whether or not the technique applying the underlying theory of the SCRAM program was applied properly on any occasion in question. The parties agree that the State of Texas must present proof by clear and convincing evidence on this element.
8. The parties have reached an agreement that this stipulation shall be admissible and binding upon the parties in all future proceedings, including, but not limited to, administrative reviews, motions to revoke, motions to adjudicate, appeals, writs, and all other legal proceedings in this cause.
Signed on December 4, 2007.______________________________ XXXXXXXXXX, Attorney for Defendant______________________________Defendant XXXXXXXXX______________________________Robert S. DuBoiseAssistant District AttorneyApproved by the Court on December 4, 2007.__________________________PRESIDING JUDGE "
Challenging the science is not admissable most likely because this prosecuter rather win than find the truth. Should a signature of a defendant give the legal community the right to turn a blind eye, ignore historical cases that set precedents for a more effective system and abolish Constitutional Rights? One is supposed to have the right to challenge their accuser, in these cases it is SCRAM.
Reference:
http://tdcaa.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=347098965&f=157098965&m=6851076951
"Unthinkable respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth"
Albert Einstein
posted by marcellus91872 at 12:48 PM
12 Comments:
First I want to say sorry for posting on this particular post but I am not familar with this type of posting and this was the newest and I am looking for someone to respond. I also would like to thank Marcellus91872 for all this great info. on the scram and thank you to all who have posted here!! Ok now for my story:
My husband was court ordered to have the breath monitor (hooks up to phone- dont know what is called)
well anyway my husband is deaf in one ear and he was having a hard time hearing the tones. SO we thought that the scram would be better and easier!! HA well he was ordered to server 180 days on this braclet we are down to 3 weeks left and last week he went to see is probation officer like he does every month and they put him in jail stating that he obstructed the braclet. Well this obstruction is false and I tryed to talk anyone who would listen that this thing is a joke. I didnt have much luck. So after spending 52 hours in jail our attorney talk with the judge and they decided just to let him out and add 2 weeks to the braclet. I think they (atty.& judge and anyone else in the city bldg.) that there are problems with this system. I am very mad and I want to protest this but I dont know who I need to talk to that can make a difference. But I just want people to know here in our city that the scram bracelet is not the way to go. Can anyone give me some ideas who I can write or something! This just aint right my husband did not obstruct this thing....come on not with 3 weeks left...regardless we just want to get this over with.
Thanks in advance for any input
C
And yet another with no mention of alcohol detection? Socks, cardboard, saran wrap and a black trash bag all failed to mask a drinking episode in AMS's "white paper" research! I write everyone with clout, senators, lawyers and even prosecuters, one letter will not win the fight!
Marcellus
NO - No mention of alcohol! It was only about the obstruction. Which looking here on this site I really didnt see much info. about obstuction returning a false reading. I want to fight and I will write letters and send them some of this great info. from this site. Again I want to thank you for this site and great information.
C
I personnally have no doubt there was an obstruction for pants, socks, dead skin from the abrasions or a whole host of alternate artifact may have caused the read but without alcohol being detected the chances are slim that it was done for delinquent purposes. Perhaps witnesses could help the fight, I didn't even use all my evidence to beat my first charge!
Marcellus
He works outside and that particular day it was very cold, he had to cut this long johns so that they would fit down over the scram but I dont think that happened, only because he moves and walks around, up & down a ladder ect...he said he didnt remember feeling anything abnormal, only that it was loose. This was confirmed by the guy that took it off at the jail. I dont know....
C
Excellent, co-workers and company owners are what proved my innocence. I believe through my extensive study on the subject a significant piece of lint (one that may not be humanly detected for I notice nothing unusual the day of mine) will cause a read.
Marcellus
Ok- Could have been too cold outside or maybe saw dust or dirt or something.
I talk to my atty. to see if we could switch back to the breath machine, he didnt advise only because I think he didnt want to do the work...(whatever time to get a new atty.) Anyway he advised us to keep a journal of what he did that day and who he was in contact with.. this sounds good but I think that sometime even with YOUR witness you still dont have a fighting chance...maybe I wrong! I tell ya ..I just finished nursing school and I think maybe I should have went to law school....hahahah...
Thank you for your input it has help me.
C
I just want to thank you for the research you have done, and the resources that you provide in your blog. My boyfriend and I are in the court battle of our lives with false positives on the SCRAM, and your blog has been a sigh of relief that there are people who are going through the same thing we are. Our lives will never be the same because of this. Our relationship has been tested, jobs have been lost, and the mental stress and psychological damage that has resulted from the events is unbelievable.
THANK YOU. You will never know how valuable this information has been.
Meagan
mpoiner@kent.edu
Could some one hack the modems? A worm...? The weakest link...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Please, if you are serious about fighting the scram injustice as read in all these blogs, please write me (i am not a lawyer) at fightscraminjustice@gmail.com.
Please give your history while wearing your scram bracelet, along with any incidental information that might be helpful.
We cannot win alone, but in numbers we can. With you in this fight against injustice.
I have seen remarkable improvements in my health since I started using liposomal glutathione. Maximizing glutathione's advantages, the liposomal administration technique improves absorption. My energy levels have increased, and I've also seen a difference in the texture and tone of my skin. The liposomal form enhances its efficacy significantly and is a potent antioxidant.
Post a Comment
<< Home