October 03, 2009
/24-7PressRelease/ --
Lab Results: Crime Analysts Must Testify
Article provided by Ronald E. Smith, P.C.
Visit us at
www.ronaldsmithlaw.com/
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees any person accused of a crime the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." However, since this amendment was penned more than 200 years ago, courts have struggled to articulate the precise contours of this right.
Most recently, the Supreme Court took up this issue earlier this year in Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts. In this case, the Court held that a crime laboratory report can only be used against a criminal defendant at trial when the analyst responsible for creating the report gives testimony and subjects him or herself to cross-examination.
The Consequences of The Ruling in Melendez-Diaz
Those favoring the decision claim it a significant victory for the rights of people accused of crimes. However, even those who support this ruling acknowledge that the ruling drastically increased the workload of many state crime labs. Within days of the Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz, numerous DUI and drug cases across the country were continued or dismissed by judges when an analyst was unavailable.
The holding in Melendez-Diaz has had particularly noteworthy consequences for DUI prosecutions in Virginia. In July 2008, prior to the Melendez-Diaz ruling, Virginia's technicians were subpoenaed only 43 times; in contrast, technicians were summoned 925 times in July 2009 following this ruling. When specialists are required to testify in court on such a regular basis, they are unable to spend time in the lab completing the necessary analysis.
The Virginia Legislative Response To The Ruling
Recognizing the significant strain on state resources, the Virginia legislature took action almost immediately. Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia called a special session of the legislature to amend the state's statute governing the use of crime laboratory reports.
While the Court ruled that the common practice of submitting these reports without the ability to cross-examine the preparer is unconstitutional, it also held that so-called "notice and demand" statutes are constitutional. Under such statutes, the prosecutor must notify the defendant in advance that he or she intends to submit a report without the testimony of the technician who prepared the report. The defendant must then have an opportunity to object to the use of this report without an analyst. Barring such an objection, though, the report can be used without testimony.
Virginia's new legislation follows this format. Under the new law, a prosecutor in Virginia must notify a defendant four weeks before a hearing or trial if the prosecutor intends to use a sworn statement by an analyst as evidence. The defendant then has two weeks to challenge the report. If the report is challenged, then the analyst who prepared it must appear and be subject to cross examination. If the defense does not object within two weeks, then the right to testimony from the technician in court is waived.
Additionally, the legislation extends Virginia's speedy trial requirements, so the prosecution may ensure that a technician is available to testify.
Finally, as part of the special legislative session, Virginia lawmakers addressed the issue of alcohol breath machines used in drunk driving cases. Under prior Virginia law, prosecutors had to submit a certificate of reliability to demonstrate the accuracy of the machine. However, some in the legislature feared that such a certificate could only be admitted with the testimony of the technician calibrating the machine. Accordingly, the new law eliminated information regarding the accuracy testing of such machines, to excuse the technicians who inspect and maintain the state's breathalyzers from being required to testify in court.
The Future Implications of This Ruling
The Virginia Legislature responded promptly to ensure compliance with the ruling in Melendez-Diaz, but this ruling does not provide the final word regarding the Confrontation Clause. The Supreme Court has already announced it will hear another case regarding the Confrontation Clause during the 2010 term, Briscoe v Virginia. This case is expected to further clarify the prior ruling in Melendez-Diaz and may ultimately result in further modifications to Virginia laws.
Clearly, this is an evolving area of the law. If you or a loved one has been arrested for DUI or a crime involving drugs, it is important to work with an attorney who has experience handling these matters and understands the changing nature of these cases. Contact an attorney to discuss your concerns and protect your interests.
Article provided by Ronald E. Smith, P.C.
Visit us at
www.ronaldsmithlaw.com/---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com# # #
Read more Press Releases from Findlaw PR:
