October 23, 2009
/24-7PressRelease/ --
Melendez-Diaz May Be Short-Lived Victory for Criminal Defendants
Article provided by Attorney David R. Yannetti
Visit us at
www.davidyannetti.com
A recent US Supreme Court case resulted in major changes to the legal requirements for using scientific evidence in trials and clarified the rights of defendants guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled that crime lab reports are inadmissible at trial unless the analyst who prepared the report is available to testify.
However, in an unusual move, the Court granted cert to a case that raises similar issues to Melendez-Diaz and will hear oral arguments in Briscoe v. Virginia during the Court's upcoming term. Many legal commentators believe that the addition of new Justice Sonia Sotomayor may give the dissenting justices the majority they need to overturn or significantly restrict Melendez-Diaz.
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that a lab report may only be admitted into evidence and presented at trial if the analyst who prepared the report is available for cross-examination. According to the slim majority, to do otherwise would violate the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause requires that criminal defendants are given an opportunity to cross-examine those who testify against them.
The majority opinion raised important issues about the reliability and neutrality of scientific data and the need to question those who compile the information used in lab reports to test underlying assumptions. The Court referenced DNA evidence that was later found to be incorrect and other examples demonstrating the fallibility of scientific evidence.
The dissenting opinion was concerned about the burden the majority's holding was going to place on an already over-burdened criminal justice system. The dissenting opinion noted that making lab analysts available for trial will create even more backlog in the nation's crime labs. It also will add considerable time and expense to trials, further encumbering the justice system.
The Justices who banded together for the majority opinion in Melendez-Diaz made an unlikely alliance, including conservative Justices Scalia and Thomas and liberal Justices Souter, Stevens and Ginsburg. Justice Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Alito.
Briscoe v. Virginia
In Briscoe, the Supreme Court will address whether a state can avoid violating the Confrontation Clause when a prosecutor introduces a certificate from a forensic laboratory analysis without presenting the analyst if the criminal defendant is given the right to call the analyst as his or her own witness.
Briscoe v. Virginia represents two consolidated cases involving criminal defendants who had certificates issued by forensic lab analysts admitted against them at trial. The analysts were not made available in either case for the defendants to cross-examine. As a result of the evidence presented against them, including evidence contained in the certificates, both criminal defendants were convicted. The convictions were upheld on appeal.
The cases were then consolidated with a third case and appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, which affirmed the rulings by the appellate courts. According to the court's opinion, Virginia's statute that permits defendants to call lab analysts as their own witnesses meets the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. None of the defendants in Briscoe called the analysts as their own witnesses. The Virginia Supreme Court said that this failure effectively "waived the challenges under the Confrontation Clause to the admissibility of the certificates of analysis."
The Potential Impact of Briscoe for Melendez-Diaz
Many people question why the US Supreme Court granted cert to a case with a legal issue that seems already to have been decided by the Melendez-Diaz opinion?
Generally, when the Court receives a cert request for a case with an issue similar to one that the Court already has considered, the author of the majority opinion will write a memo suggesting how the case should be treated. This usually results in a recommendation that the case be denied cert or returned to the last court to hear the case for reconsideration. This did not happen in Briscoe. Enough Justices voted in favor of adding the case for review during its next term.
Some speculate that the newest addition to the bench, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, may supply the vote necessary to either overrule or minimize the holding of Melendez-Diaz. Justice Sotomayor took the place of Justice Souter, who retired after last year's term and voted with the majority in Melendez-Diaz. She also is a former prosecutor and some believe that she will be more sympathetic to the dissenting opinion's concerns that the majority's holding in Melendez-Diaz places too onerous a burden on the criminal justice system.
Conclusion
If the US Supreme Court upholds the Virginia court's ruling, the defendant would bear the burden of ensuring that the analyst who prepared the lab report was available for trial. If the criminal defendant can be responsible for calling the lab analyst as his or her own witness, then the ruling in Melendez-Diaz loses some, if not all, of its bite.
However, until such a ruling is handed down, Melendez-Diaz remains the law regarding the current legal requirements for admitting lab reports into evidence at criminal trials. For more information on the Confrontation Clause or the other rights of criminal defendants, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney today.
Article provided by Attorney David R. Yannetti
Visit us at
www.davidyannetti.com---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com# # #
Read more Press Releases from Findlaw PR:
