| Viewing Single Post From: Dr. Meehan, anyone? | |
|---|---|
| Quasimodo | Jun 27 2009, 08:53 PM |
|
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-law-need-not-bow-to-chemistry/print/ Analysis: Law need not bow to chemistry Posted By Lyle Denniston On June 25, 2009 @ 3:36 pm In Commentary and Analysis, Orders and Opinions Analysis Expressing a heavy dose of skepticism that crime lab reports are so reliable as to be beyond question, the Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for chemists and other scientists who prepare such reports to be summoned to the witness stand in criminal trials to defend their analyses. The 5-4 ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (07-591) resulted from some unusual alliances among the Justices, and continued the deep division within the Court over how to interpret the Constitution’s guarantee that an individual on trial for a crime has a right to face and challenge the witnesses for the prosecution. (snip) Now, if prosecutors want to offer a crime lab report as evidence, and the report was prepared with the aim that it would be used at trial, the prosecution has to bring along the author or scientist and make them available for questioining by the defense — if the defense insists on the right to confront the analyst. It is not up to defense lawyers to summon them to the stand, but they must assert the right to confront the analyst, the Court indicated. The opinion recited a good deal of information from published reports about how defective crime labs and their results are, and said that claims that lab reports are the product of “neutral scientific testing” are open to challenge because such reports are not “as neutral or as reliable” as advertised. “Forensic evidence,” Scalia wrote, “is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation.” (snip) Still, Scalia said, the decision to compel the reports’ expert authors to testify is based ultimately on the right of confrontation, not the quality of the reports or the credibility of the chemist. “We would reach the same conclusion,” he wrote in a footnote, “if all analysts possessed the scientific acumen of Mme. Curie and the veracity of Mother Theresa.” (snip) Moreover, Scalia said, defense lawyers may often opt not to insist on confronting a crime lab analyst, because they may conclude for strategic reasons that this might highlight rather than cast doubt on the report’s results as evidence. (snip) |
 |
|
| Dr. Meehan, anyone? · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers | |
8:30 PM Nov 25
