In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, (129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009) that prosecutors cannot introduce a crime lab report into evidence without making the analyst available at trial. Despite the fact that this ruling is only six months old, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear this issue again on January 11, 2010, with a new set of facts in the case of Briscoe v. Virginia, No. 07-11191. Because the Court was split 5-4 in the June decision (with Souter in the majority), it will be interesting to see if the ruling will be different this time with Sotomayor now the in place of Souter. To me it should be very obvious that the preparer of a report that can result in serious jail-time should be subject to the defense’s scrutiny and cross-examination. Of course, others will say that this puts a burden on the already overworked crime lab personnel if they have to appear in court every time a report they prepared is used. However, the Sixth Amendment to our Constitution requires that a defendant be afforded the opportunity to confront witnesses against it, and what could be a more damaging “witness” than a lab report. With all of the cases where new DNA tests are resulting in the release of innocent people from prisons and the public’s willingness to embrace forensics as gold because of the popularity of shows like CSI, shouldn’t we at least be able to question the people who actually prepared the damaging reports at the initial trial?
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
In the eyes of the law 
On January 25, 2010, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the rule in Melendez-Diaz to stand. I was looking forward to Sotomayor’s stance because I didn’t know if her background as a prosecutor would affect her decision. She certainly agreed in this case that the Constitution gives defendants the right to confront “witnesses” against them. This is the right result.
I agree with the result in this case. The constitution should triumph any ruling that goes against it. The defendant should have the right to be afforded the opportunity to confront witnesses against it, and what could be a more damaging “witness” than a lab report, as it is in the constitution. Also, if a possible innocent man is in a circumstance where he could go to prison because the prosecution violated his 6th amendment rights, that would be a serious problem. However, I can definitely see where problems with this ruling arise. As you mentioned, it would put a burden on the over worked crime lab personnel, but there would also be a serious problem when that involves rape kits that I believe can take quite awhile to process. If that is an issue then I think the courts should accommodate the trial dates.