Constituional Rights on Breath Testing Denied in CA

In California in 2009, the California Supreme Court in a 7 to 0 decision said that a defendant charged with a "Generic DUI", that is being impaired by alcohol while driving (Vehicle Code Section 23152(a), has the right to bring in evidence that his or her Partition Ratio may not be the average that is set in all breath testing machines of 2100:1. If a person's Partition Ratio is higher than 2100:1, then their true blood alcohol would be higher and they would be impaired; that could run all the way up to 2950:1 on the high side. On the other hand, should a person's Partition Ratio be lower, which can be as low as 800:1, the person may not be impaired. For example, lets say the person's test results show breath results of .10 and .10; two tests are required. The machine is set for 2100:1 so that would be an average reading. But, everyone isn't average. Let's say the person tested had a Partition Ratio of 1000:1. We would multiple the 1000 by the result of .10 which would equal 100, and then divide that by what the machine is set at as an average which is 2100 which would tell us that the real blood alcohol level is .047, and you can't be impaired by alcohol at that level. But, the trial judges are ignoring the Supreme Court Case of People v McNeal, which means they are ignoring the California Supreme Court case law, and the United States Constitution which demands that a person be allowed to present evidence in his own behalf at trial.
Why are the trial judges doing this? Because they have decided they know better that the defendant is guilty, and without this evidence they will be convicted. They also know that most defendant's can barely afford the cost of a trial, let alone an appeal. The judges in many cases won't even force or allow the defense to cross-examine toxicologist who are suppose to know this material if they truly experts, about Partition Ratio. Now there is justice. U.S. Supreme Court case law rulings ignored, the U.S. Constitution ignored, the California Supreme Court case law ignored, and the defendant was allegedly given a fair trial. Worse yet, nothing happens to the judges who ignore these rules, nothing. My advise, get a good lawyer that knows Constitutional law and be prepared to appeal in to the Federal Court.