Trials of the Green Tongue;  Excerpts From the Fringe.

This a transcript from a suppression hearing featuring testimony from a state of Colorado head of the Forensics Chemistry Lab.  She had no Chemistry degree, and committed perjury using ficticious science that she teaches to DRUG RECOGNITION EXPERTS.  Judges, prosecutors and officers don't care and have tried to cover up the perjury when discovered by an audit as long as the revenue keeps rolling in and the programs stay funded.

Controlling the perils of dope smoking.
NO ONE AT THE HEARING HAD TAKEN ANY DRUGS, THE RULING JUST LOOKS THAT WAY
A hearing was had regarding the matter of the tongue.  Three witnesses testified as to Green you said you have taught in the field of forensic toxicology? This is claimed although she has not chemistry degree or chemistry major.
A. I do. I sit on a national panel called The Technical Advisory Panel for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration through the International Association of Chiefs of Police for the Drug Recognition Expert Program. I am the national expert toxicologist for that program. . I also belong to the Society of Forensic Toxicologists, International Association of Chemical Testing, and the Colorado State Managers Association. And, I teach for the Drug Recognition Experts. I teach the Drug Recognition Experts in Colorado and nationally.  This is extremely unsettling.   It shows the extremes the police establishment will go to push its agenda
Q. Great. Are you familiar with Standard Field Sobriety Tests?
A. I am. I make policy for NHTSA --National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -with regards to the Standard Field Sobriety Maneuvers, and I am certified in Standard Field Sobriety Maneuvers
A. Well, the program started in 1978 in California and they moved to Arizona, and Colorado was the third state to get it. So, in its inception in Colorado, I was part of teaching the drug recognition experts, then became the national tox -- the toxicologist expert for the program. I was elected to that position in 2007. My term expires in December -- this December -- but expect to be re-elected to that position.
Q. With your training and experience, have you had any opportunity to evaluate the presence in marijuana in suspects?
A. At least once a week, I read an eval from a drug recognition expert with regards to an evaluation that specifically is about marijuana and how that correlates to the biological specimen that is attached to that eval.. Furthermore, I teach the DREs with regards to the signs and symptoms that you would see in a -- when you are calling that category cannabis.
Q. Okay. And, you have a degree in chemistry?
A. No
. Q. Okay. Do you know Professor Waterworth at University of Colorado?
A. Which -- would -- there's many --
Q. University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Colorado, Denver?
A. No. I just recently received an e-mail from Dr. Barry Logan that asked me if I knew Jay Waterworth -- Waterworth -- and I said, no.  Dr. Barry Logan was a principal in the manual that put green tongue into the curriculum.  When busted, the writers agreed to warn the readers that green tongue was but anecdotal and sent a copy of the remedial email to Dr. Watterworth.  This shows that a nerve was struck
Q. All right.
A. He was looking into some information about him being -- him -- I don't know if it is a him or her -- about being a defense expert.
MR. BLEWITT: Okay. I would object to her giving expert witness as far as the drug recognition expert. We have already got two people testifying to that, and she wasn't there. It is total hearsay.As far as the urine test, she concurs with the expert I had -- have requested, so I don't see any reason for her testimony whatsoever.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay., a response to that?
MR. DA: Your Honor, I believe her testimony is in contrast to the testimony that defense expert may bring if called. Specifically, in regards to, not the fact that urine is not -there is no correlation between a positive test in urine and an equivalent BAC, per se, but rather that it is part of the totality of the circumstances that can be taken into account when deciding whether or not a person is impaired by the use of marijuana.
Q (BY DA) When you reviewed the reports in this case, what factors did you look for?
A. I looked at the 12-step protocol that the DRE followed and if it was in accordance with the national standard set forth by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the standards for the Drug Recognition Experts. I looked at the narrative that was written, and I looked at the results from the laboratory. So, it was the totality of the situation.
Q. Did the urine sample play into your decision at all?
A. Yes. Always, biological specimens play into the decision.
Q. Now, does a urine sample alone provide any indication one way or another whether a person is under the influence?
A. A urine sample by itself can never tell you if a person is under the influence or impaired by a drug.
Q. But, if that urine sample is corroborated by other indicia, would you be able to make a determination at that point?
A. Yes.  We call it the investigation triad. It is -- at the top of that triangle is the reason for the stop; any information given at the time of the contact. To the left would be a drug recognition expert, and to the right would be toxicology.
Q (BY DA) What, particularly, about the reports that you had read in this case and the DRE, did you believe were indicators of impairment. Of  the defendant in this case?
A. The psychophysical tests that were performed as part of the DRE. They were classic signs and symptoms for indicia of marijuana.
Q. Now, based on everything you received, including urine sample, the DRE evaluation, and the observations of the officers, what is your opinion with regard to this case?
 Based upon reading reports based upon observations that can not be duplicated, and not direct observation or evidence, she can venture an opinion
MR. BLEWITT: Objection.
MR. DA: Thank you, Your Honor. It is my understanding that being qualified as an expert, she is authorized to issue an opinion on the ultimate issue with this -- in this case. Based on that -- Rule 72, I believe -- she is allowed to enter that opinion, and she has laid the proper foundation, saying that she read the reports, that she knew what to look for in terms of this, and she is qualified as an expert in forensic toxicology to render such an opinion.
THE COURT: Well, under Rule 30 -- or, 703, that does say that facts for a particular -facts or data in a particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. So, that means we do not have to worry about her being personally there and having witnessed it personally as we would with a lay witness.
Further, Rule 704 says that the testimony is to the opinion or inference otherwise is not --  otherwise admissible -- pardon me -- is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier or fact.
So, I will overrule both of those objections.
MR.DA: Thank you, Your Honor.
A. My opinion was that he was impaired.
Q. I see. And,  a brown-green coating on his tongue. The other officer said it was a white-green. Which was it?
A. It could be either.
Q. Okay. So, you are basing it also on the brown-green coating on the tongue?
A. It is just one clue.
Q. Okay. Dilated pupils? So, one of the clues was that he raised his arms while walking. Somebody with scoliosis has a little trouble walking at times; doesn't he -- wouldn't he?
A. I would imagine so.
THE WITNESS: It does. But, I can tell you, sir, in 26 years, I have never seen an incorrect DRE report.  The experts are always competent and truthful
THE COURT: Okay. Given the information you received before you came here today, the information you have received today, do you have an opinion about whether Mr. Strasser was either impaired or under the influence of a substance?  The Judge is helping the prosecutor out here
THE WITNESS: My opinion was that he was impaired, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. By what substance?
 THE WITNESS: Marijuana -- cannabis.
The Court ruled, partially described in the following”
THE COURT: That, Trooper Mack walked to the vehicle, asks Mr. Strasser to perform roadside maneuvers, and that Mr. Strasser did agree to do those voluntary roadside maneuvers.
That Trooper Mack administered what he referred to as SFST, which is the Standard Field Sobriety Tests, or as we call roadside maneuvers, and that in his opinion, for various reasons,
Mr. Strasser did not perform as Trooper Mack expected a sober person would.
That, during the contact, Trooper Mack asked the defendant to stick out his tongue, and defendant stuck out his tongue. There have been various descriptions of what the color of the tongue was, but that it has roughly been described as being green, and that was an indication of recent marijuana use, and that the defendant denied any recent marijuana use, and that he said he hadn't smoked within the last 30 days.
Ms. Burbach appeared before the Court and testified that given the information that she received from the reports that were written up by the officer who made the stop, the drug recognition expert, and the toxicology reports, she made a determination based on her training and experience that the defendant in this case was under the influence of THC…... There was no bad driving, but all of these things will be determined by a jury if it goes to a trial.  A rural jury found the defendant guilty.  It ignored the fact there was no erratic, and the judge allowed the testimony of the drug recognition expert, even though based upon voodoo science.
Aug 2019.
The state chemist was fired after this hearing.  The State auditor submitted a scathing report upon her conduct and her department, citing wrong and misleading drug analysis, lack of credentials and the commission of perjury.  She bragged to co-workers about “beating defense attorneys” and her conduct, contrary to law and in violation of her oath of office.  The Attorney tried to conceal the auditor’s report.  Unlike other states such as Massachusetts, the Attorney General didn’t rectify this injustice and continued to prosecute using tainting evidence until the report was publicized.  One of my grad students examined the drug recognition expert training manual and found it to be based in superstition rather than fact.  To this day, police are still training these false witnesses to convict citizens and to make money for the criminal justice enterprise, supporting counseling programs which bleed poor defendants dry.   This was known to the state in March of 2013.  The state’s solution?  Close down the state lab and privatize the tests.
Without training or credentials, her testimony has helped imprison or extort money from the citizenry with impunity.  She even testified to the legislature as an expert  in 2011, when a bill was proposed to convict drivers of driving under the influence of marijuana.  The testimony was based not upon science, but political expedience to make money for the state.  She repeated to lie in 2102.She committed wholesale perjury and then bragged about it.  1700 samples had to be retested by other labs.  However, the real problem is that corrupt prosecutors and judges let her testify as an expert witness without any reservations.  I believe that this is a worse crime, the moral equivalent of German judges sending hordes off to concentration camps for extermination.  He helped get convictions and had a bias against defendants.  The supreme insult to the citizenry was that she didn’t even have a chemistry degree, and judges and prosecutors enabled this outrage.
It is time to wrest power from the corporate rulers.  Teach them that Government is for the people, not a non-person entity.  Corporations are the creation of Government and we, the people, through our government demand that they be held accountable to us, not some stock exchange.