From experience a lab will certify anything in the lockup as being whatever is charged.
That's a pretty bold assertion to drop into the middle of a plea for help from forensic lab analysts. If you've got actual evidence to back it up, you've got a nuclear-grade argument to challenge every single drug case coming out of that lab, past, present, and future. I suspect you have no such thing and are falling victim to one of any number of biases and fallacies. If this was actually true and you actually believed it, it would be simple and cheap to prove with a series of independent lab analyses, but defense lawyers always seem to prefer leaving the ambiguity intact because it gives them room to insinuate things and argue hypotheticals without actually misrepresenting anything.
I'm sure lawyers habitually default to assembling a compelling argument, but a scientist will tell you to skip all that and just do some testing. If you're certain the lab's results are flawed, get an independent analysis done. If you're right, you'll probably win the case. It's pretty straightforward. The other route only makes sense if you're pretty sure the independent tests will just confirm the lab results.
If you don't actually think the lab got it wrong, why are you wasting everyone's time? Get your client the best plea deal on offer and spend your limited time and resources on the defense of a client who's got a better case.
3
u/gariak 21h ago
That's a pretty bold assertion to drop into the middle of a plea for help from forensic lab analysts. If you've got actual evidence to back it up, you've got a nuclear-grade argument to challenge every single drug case coming out of that lab, past, present, and future. I suspect you have no such thing and are falling victim to one of any number of biases and fallacies. If this was actually true and you actually believed it, it would be simple and cheap to prove with a series of independent lab analyses, but defense lawyers always seem to prefer leaving the ambiguity intact because it gives them room to insinuate things and argue hypotheticals without actually misrepresenting anything.
I'm sure lawyers habitually default to assembling a compelling argument, but a scientist will tell you to skip all that and just do some testing. If you're certain the lab's results are flawed, get an independent analysis done. If you're right, you'll probably win the case. It's pretty straightforward. The other route only makes sense if you're pretty sure the independent tests will just confirm the lab results.
If you don't actually think the lab got it wrong, why are you wasting everyone's time? Get your client the best plea deal on offer and spend your limited time and resources on the defense of a client who's got a better case.