| Dr. Meehan, anyone?; new SCOTUS decision | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 25 2009, 12:43 PM (414 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Jun 25 2009, 12:43 PM Post #1 |
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062501690_pf.html Supreme Court Rules School's Strip Search of Girl Was Illegal By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:17 PM The Supreme Court ruled today that Arizona school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old girl when they subjected her to a strip search on the suspicion she might be hiding ibuprofen in her underwear. (snip) In what was the court's next to last day in issuing decisions from the 2008-2009 term, the justices also: -- Ruled 5 to 4 that forensic reports prepared for criminal trials are the same as testimony for the prosecution and that those who prepare them must be available for cross-examination by defense lawyers. The dissenters said such a requirement was a dramatic change in criminal proceedings and could have a debilitating impact on the criminal justice system. [Not sure if this includes only persons who work for the DA, or if it also includes outside specialists hired by the prosecutor] (snip) The court will conclude its term Monday. Edited by Quasimodo, Jun 25 2009, 12:44 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| LTC8K6 | Jun 25 2009, 12:45 PM Post #2 |
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
That's interesting... 
No thanks, I'm driving. |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 25 2009, 01:35 PM Post #3 |
|
The second part of that ruling is GREAT! However, I am a little concerned about the wording of the first part. I am concerned that it continues to promote the idea that forensics scientists primarily support the prosecution. I wish they would make it clear that forensic scientists primarily support justice and the truth, whether it supports the prosecution's case or not. Edited by MikeZPU, Jun 25 2009, 01:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
| sdsgo | Jun 25 2009, 02:09 PM Post #4 |
|
Mike, The second ruling was in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. The court simply held that analysts’ reports were testimonial; and therefore, subject to the Crawford confrontation rules. You can read the full opinion here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-591.pdf Take a good look at Section C beginning on page 11. |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 25 2009, 02:15 PM Post #5 |
|
Thanks for the clarification! I appreciate! I will take a look at Section C (thanks for the pointer!) |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 25 2009, 02:18 PM Post #6 |
|
I like this line from Section C: "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty." |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Jun 25 2009, 02:31 PM Post #7 |
|
The judicial allignment on this one is absolutely fascinating! SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concur-ring opinion. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER and ALITO, JJ., joined. This highlly unconventional realignment parallels their unofficial ruling recently that William Shakespeare acted as a mask for other people.. Stevens and Ginsburg voted with Scalia on that one also. |
|
|
|
| jvj | Jun 25 2009, 03:20 PM Post #8 |
I'm your huckleberry...
|
Well, technically supporting justice and the truth is what the prosecutor is supposed to be doing also. |
|
|
|
| Tidbits | Jun 25 2009, 08:15 PM Post #9 |
|
Serious food fight. Very long delay before releasing it. Kennedy writes dissent. Very unusual. My suspicion is that he had the opinion of the court until he lost a vote. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-591.pdf But, see this: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf Qualified immunity of public school principal, teacher, nurse. 8-1 I think Thomas, the one, is right. 2 have extreme wrong view of immunity requirement. Now, what standard is there for a student search? Who knows. That is a bad policy. I missed the panties exception to the school exception in the Constitution. If you like litigation, this is a winner. |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 26 2009, 12:13 AM Post #10 |
|
OT: I just re-read Meehan's entire testimony on Dec. 15, in Quasi's book. Meehan is a liar, plain and simple. It can be demonstrably proven that Meehan lied multiple times on the witness stand, both on Dec. 15 and during Bar Trial Testimony. |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 27 2009, 08:53 PM Post #11 |
|
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) |
|
|
|
| Tidbits | Jun 27 2009, 11:00 PM Post #12 |
|
Related, and see Alito's opinion. http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/1833883/1/?x=25#new |
|
|
|
| nyesq83 | Jun 28 2009, 10:27 AM Post #13 |
|
IIRC, Meehan testified that he thought Crystal's johns' DNA was "not probative". Which leads me to suspect that the Chief of Police or some other Durham official had DNA hanging in the Louvre. Meehan also made the gratuitous, misleading and damnable statement explaining away the lack of DLax DNA by using the metaphor about bank robbers not leaving fingerprints. |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 28 2009, 07:01 PM Post #14 |
|
Well put!!! In the Bar's Summary of Finding of Facts http://www.ncbar.gov/Nifong%20Final%20Order.pdf it is reported that prior to December 15, 2006, Nifong had filed the paperwork to put the court on notice that Meehan would be called as an expert witness by the State. The State's expert witness? But his DNA results all favored the defendants. So, what was he going to testify to? His testimony on December 15 and at the Bar Trial tell us. Like you put so well, as far as the fact that not a single cell of LAX DNA was found on ANY of the items in the rape kit despite a violent gang-rape: "Oh, sure, we see that all the time. We call it the CSI effect." We see this kind of scenario all the time with sensitive Y-plex DNA testing? Then, by that logic, if a DNA match is found, the "CSI Effect" could also be invoked: it was planted. Then what good is DNA testing? And at the Bar Trial, which occurred after the AG's Declaration of Innocence, Meehan defiantly claimed that the non-exclusion fingernail mixtures result was "significant" despite the fact that the fingernails were found in Dave Evans' trash can (transferance) and that he could not even get a DNA match to CGM on the fingernails. With the utterance of his most bizarre quote "We don't force-feed reports on our clients" Meehan had successfully transformed into a Nifong. Edited by MikeZPU, Jun 28 2009, 10:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
8:54 PM Dec 8
