- 01.
Six 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.
CMI's own filings concede it cannot reconstruct prior software versions — that is a foundational-reliability fact most defenders never get into the record.
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.