| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| SCOTUS Drops A Bombshell - Biggest Advantage For Defense Since Miranda |
| 2009-07-15 |
| Legal experts and prosecutors are concerned about the results of last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that requires lab analysts to be in court to testify about their tests. Lab sheets that identify a substance as a narcotic or breath-test printouts describing a suspect's blood-alcohol level are no longer sufficient evidence, the court ruled. A person must be in court to talk about the test results. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, has prosecutors and judges shaking their heads in disgust and defense lawyers nodding with satisfaction at the notion that the Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantee that defendants "shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him" is not satisfied by a sheet of paper. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #13 In Detroit, the mayor and the chief of police shut down the city's crime lab because an outside audit turned up (pardon the technical term!) suck-ass results and procedures. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2009-07-15 23:35 |
| #12 Gotta agree with SCOTUS on this one. Even the bigger cities have, um, problems with their labs. (Nope, not sayin' nuthin' specific, either. All I know is....I'd demand to cross examine any lab tech performing any test that could cost me money and/or freedom. And that's all you is gonna get from me.) |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-07-15 23:22 |
| #11 One of the issues is shoddy lab work. Even the FBI lab has had crap work come from it due to laziness and even malfeasance. If you know you have to stand there with your evidence, you'll be damned sure to follow procedures to the letter with precision. Yes, its going to make things harder on prosecutors, but that's the burden of the state. Power should side with the citizen. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-07-15 22:40 |
| #10 I agree with the ruling. I had a friend that got a false positive on a drug test and it almost took an act of congress to get the damn thing reversed. Once the paperwork was looked at, it seemed the lab mixed up some results and the error nullified some 150 tests since no one knew for sure who was who's. If you are gonna convict someone, you have to put the burden of proof on the state and the state has to make a damn good case on why we are taking away someone's freedom. Use of this technology will require proof that the lab acted in a verifiable and consistent manner for the test to be submitted as evidence so we can say that reasonable doubt has been removed and that person's test is valid, belongs to that person and can be used against them. Sucks to be the prosecutor, but that is why you don't file charges unless you are damn sure you can win the case. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-07-15 22:22 |
| #9 if there weren't issues pro/con, it wouldn't have reached SCOTUS. My paragraph snap analysis was prolly 1/1000th of the submitted argument. If Scalia was the opinion lead, I'd assume it's wise (he's not a pretentious Latina) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-07-15 22:21 |
| #8 SCOTUS is right. There are a hundred ways to bias a test while following the protocol. If prosecutors need to prioritize their prosecutions, then that is ok with me. |
| Posted by: rammer 2009-07-15 21:25 |
| #7 Ask me and I'll say the SCOTUS watches too much CSI. Where eveyone has an unlimited budget, unlimited resources, and can go to court at any time without impacting their lab time. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-07-15 21:20 |
#6 Not so fast, FrankIn drug cases, more than 1.5 million samples are analyzed by state and local labs each year, resulting in more than 350,000 felony convictions, national statistics show. "Even if only 5 percent of drug cases culminate in trials, the burden on the states is oppressive," a group of state attorneys general wrote in a brief for the case. Defence attys have no incentive to stipulate. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-07-15 21:11 |
| #5 good point on the speed/red light cams. Periodic calibration and certification is usually required/frequently overlooked. It's a I think that in most court cases, stipulation on lab/tech quals would work for DNA and other tests. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-07-15 21:04 |
| #4 Does this mean that a traffic 'photo-enforced' ticket can no longer be used in traffic court? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-07-15 21:00 |
| #3 Disagree. It's hard to cross-examine a piece of paper. Enough unscrupulous, meglomaniacal prosecutors out there. Ask the Duke lacrosse team. That's why we get to confront our accusers. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-07-15 20:42 |
| #2 Agree on point, but once the court validates the credentials and validity of the technicians and their process in one case, that should not be a subject to be raised by defense in any subsequent case and not subject to challenge every single time they testify. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-07-15 20:21 |
| #1 it will cost $ but in high-profile cases, this was already done when results were questionable. I agree it is a hassle, but a piece of paper isn't a witness |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-07-15 20:06 |