« Ind. Decisions - One prisoner appeal today from the 7th Circuit | Main | Ind. Courts - More on: "Franklin College sues Ohio-based university" »

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Courts - "Va. Special Session Called to Address Crime Lab Testimony Ruling"

Updating this ILB entry from July 15th, headed "Impact of the crime lab testimony decision,", the Washington Post has posted this story. Some quotes:

RICHMOND, July 22 --Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) announced Wednesday morning that he is convening a special session of the General Assembly to respond a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prosecutors say will lead to more dismissed cases, and has already resulted in some drunk driving cases being thrown out.

The ruling, issued last month, requires prosecutors to present technician testimony, in addition to scientific reports, in drug, drunk-driving and other cases. State and local officials say complying with it could mean significant new staffing expense and major administrative changes within the court system. * * *

The Supreme Court, in the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ruled that defendants are entitled to cross-examine the person who prepared a lab report or a blood-alcohol content certificate, and that such reports may not be admitted as evidence if prosecutors do not present the person who prepared the report.

Virginia law allows defense lawyers to subpoena such technicians for their case, but Justice Antonin Scalia said that practice wrongly shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

Here is a list of ILB entries on Melendez-Diaz.

[More] Tony Mauro of The Blog of Legal Times has posted an entry concluding:

In spite of Kaine's dramatic move, Virginia may be able to make relatively minor adjustments to its laws to accommodate Melendez-Diaz. Scalia said that states can develop procedures -- and many already have -- to notify defendants adequately about forensic evidence, giving them time to decide whether to call witnesses or waive the confrontation right. Scalia argued that it might be in defendants' best interest to waive the right, rather than having a government witness highlight the details of damaging evidence in person before a jury.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 22, 2009 01:10 PM
Posted to Courts in general