That guy is right that I came here from reddit, but I also believe in using internet sources that older lawyers may consider unconventional.
That said I would probably never cite a subreddit or forum in any proceedingâbut a good place to connect with people who know more than you and can point you in the right direction.
I have two chemists testifying. Im no chemist so any reasonable and reliable advice on what to ask, or how to cross examine any potential expert offered by the State, is much appreciated.
Please DM me or email me and maybe we can exchange email or phone numbers. my hearing is next Friday. I have already won one injunction against a district attorney in gwinnett but the sheriffâs claims in this case make it a little more challenging.
Through open records requests, I have the invoice showing the sheriff bought the machine before Orange announced they can test for D8, but I donât know if it was calibrated and updated by the time they tested the product almost a year later. I also have âCertificates of Attendanceâ from Orange for 4 of the sheriffâs deputies, so I plan on establishing their lack of adequate training or knowledge on cross examination. Hoping to get more records via subpoena next week.
Since when is a sheriff acting as an analytical chemist? âRoadsideâ or preliminary testing is performed by an LEO but the results from this are what triggers the sample to be sent to a forensic lab for confirmation. Was this never done with your clientâs products?
They are calling witnesses including Dylan Wilks, the CTO of Orange Photonics, and a school resource officer to testify that kids have been ingesting these products and having bad effects. Any insight or advice on what to ask, especially re: Wilks, is much appreciated.
If you just rip open the big elephant in the room (that testing labs and shady labs abusing results are at fault) / testing d8 specifically gets a lot of different results depending on who you send it to / prove the client had a reason to believe the product was legitimate and worry free you could hit big!
Not to mention that the type of machine used is crucial for accuracy. HPLC vs GC and the other types vs what they used against you.
Making the argument that HPLC is inaccurate probably doesnât help anyone that wants to continue selling d8, considering the extent to which the market seems to rely on certain labs using it
Can you provide us with a brief description of your overall method validation and verification plan?
Is the method used a official or standard method? (probably not official since their instrument is not a typical HPLC)
Was the method re-validated for a new inclusive analyte, d8-THC?
If so (now will refer to d8-THC as the analyte):
Can you provide us with the linear range of the calibration for the analyte?
Can you provide us with % carryover of the analyte?
Can you provide us with your LOQ and LOD values?
Have you sufficiently studied matrix effects? (if there are any) Do you advise your customers to run matrix matched reference (spiked) samples?
Do you have repeatability data?
What is your % recovery of the analyte?
Are there any interfering analytes that could lead to a false detection?
I am just spit-balling things that I would want to know before I went to jail based on results on what I would consider only a qualitative instrument. Your expert chemist can break down these questions into why they are valid, and how they would effect the confidence of the results.
There is a reason that legitimate analytical labs, especially ones that can put people away, are highly, controlled. The truth is Orange Photonics could have the most accurate and precise analytical instrument in the world (they donât) and it would not matter as once you take the instrument into the field under the control of some Sherriff, the results lose all validity.
Ask the sheriff about the last time he calibrated the instrument, can he share the R^2 value of cal curve, when did he calibrate his balances, does he keep a log book, does he use controlled reference weights, how does he store his reference standards?
Itâs frankly laughable, which is again why I say this is the easy part. First, Orange photonics needs to prove that their method is accurate and precise for d8-THC in real world samples, and have the data to back it up (my bet is they will not). Second, the Sherriff needs to be a competent analytical chemist working in a controlled environment with traceable data to back up his claims as well (not a chance).
Again, I am almost certain that the samples were sent to an actual lab, but if not I would go on a vacation until the day of the trial.
Side note: The forensic lab should have a retain sample (required in any forensic lab I know of).
Wont the sheriff just have reports of kidz ingesting, and then analytics of the samples ingested, or metabolite testing of urea of the alleged poisoned?
So he proves its caused by this type of product?
Well written, you should get a % pay from his lawyer
I am not experienced in law so take everything I am about to say with a grain of salt.
From the work I have done in a regulatory lab, my understanding is the results used in court need to be completely traceable. Meaning, if the Sheriff were to get these reports he would need to go to the source, and purchase the product which would start the chain of custody (COC). The COC from that point forward tracks everyone, everywhere, and anytime the sample changes hands, is analyzed, or moved/stored. This tracking ensures the sample was not tampered with deliberately or accidentally.
Without a COC I could ask:
Well how do you know that product came from me?
Yes the kid bought a product here, but he got the hot one from another store.
That kid put d9 in that d8 candy bar.
etc.
Urine testing falls into this oversight as well. The kid could have ingested d9 from any number of sources, it proves nothing. Additionally, not sure how metabolism of d8 compares to that of d9, may be identical.
You basically always need to go to the source. The reports may very well be probably cause, but are not enough proof.
For the record, my opinion is donât be a scumbag and sell d8 to kids, but also let us stop piss poor science passing as truth in a court of law.
Thanks so much for the sample questions, though I donât know what any of it means. Will run by my experts.
They are going to have the CTO of Orange Photonics testify, so Iâm not going to be able to outsmart him, and Iâm sure he can answer several of these questions. The sheriff wonât know shit eitherâhe let his deputies do the testifying and thereâs no chance they know any of this. LightLab 3 is designed for chemistry-ignorant users.
And yes, they are going to try to put a school resource officer on the stand to talk about kids ingesting it. I am going to try to keep it out as hearsay but regardless will cross-examine him to show they canât prove it was D8 or the quantity or where they got it.
Also, just to be clearâthis is not a criminal case, no trial. We filed a lawsuit for an injunction to stop the sheriff from busting vape stores selling hemp products.
Kids also drink and smoke. Iâm all for busting stores selling to kids. But the sheriff isnât trying to shut down every 7 11 because some kids had tobacco or beer. This is lazy last enforcement that is violating the rights of good actors because they donât want to identify the particular store selling to kids.
On the testing side, everyone is right. The OP LB is not a laboratory-grade testing device. Also, all that product is probably hot for d9. Youâre playing with fire there. What happens when the judge throws out that testing and orders accurate testing. That will not be good if youâre claiming compliance.
Iâd cling close to the farm bill. These are legal products. If bad operators are selling them to kids, bust them at the point of sale. But donât hurt these fine hemp purveyors with overarching, gestapo tactics against a legal industry.
Just updating this group to say the judge told us this morning he is granting an injunction that prohibits the sheriff from going after Delta-8-THC products unless the product is an edible (GA law is a little quirkyâtheyre wrong on thinking those are not legal but itâs somewhat understandable).
Thanks to those here who helped out. Dr. John MacKay of Cannabis Extraction testified as did Grania Garnighian, chemist and owner of Alchemy Processing. Both were solid. Dylan Wilks testified that the âpresumptive modeâ used on the LightLab3 was reliable for detecting Delta-9, but admitted on cross-examination that 1) it bases a positive result on the ratio of Delta-9 to CBD in a sample, and 2) the machine would give a âpositiveâ result for THC if there an amount of Delta-9-THC that is under the legal limit but more than the amount of CBD in a sample.
The hearing lasted all day and was very chemistry-heavy.
