« Ind. Courts - "Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson said this week he can be ready in six months to retry David Camm for the murders of his family" | Main | Courts - "Illinois Supreme Court delays medical malpractice damage cap ruling" »

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Courts - "Justices Revisit Rule Requiring Lab Testimony"

Adam Liptak writes today in the Sunday NY Times, in a front-page story, about how:

in an unusual move, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Jan. 11 in a new case that raises questions about how lower courts may carry out its six-month-old precedent. Many state attorneys general and prosecutors are hoping the court will overrule its decision in the earlier case, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, before it can take root, saying it is a costly, disruptive and dangerous misstep. * * *

Lawyers for the defendants in the new Supreme Court case, Briscoe v. Virginia, No. 07-11191, acknowledged that the Melendez-Diaz decision “creates some additional cost” in states that had not already recognized a right to live testimony. But they said those costs were minor and “constitutionally irrelevant.”

In the case, prosecutors in Virginia offered proof that the “off-white, chunky solid material” and “white, rock-like substance” that the police found in Mark A. Briscoe’s kitchen and shorts was cocaine by submitting “certificates of analysis” signed by a forensic scientist. Mr. Briscoe argues that this violated his constitutional rights because the scientist did not take the stand.

The immediate issue in the case is whether a hybrid procedure used in Virginia satisfied the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Melendez-Diaz case. Prosecutors there were allowed to present paper reports during their case but were required to produce the analysts responsible for them for cross-examination during the defense’s case if requested.

In its brief supporting the Virginia prosecutors, the federal government argued that this procedure was more efficient than requiring the prosecution to present analysts during its case, pointing to the experience in Washington, which used Virginia’s system until 2006. Washington now uses the system preferred by defense lawyers — that of presenting live testimony from analysts during the prosecution’s case.

See this long list of earlier ILB entries involving the Melendez-Diaz decision.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 20, 2009 09:31 AM
Posted to Courts in general