Confrontation Clause Upheld at US S.Ct.

Image via Wikipedia

The United State Supreme Court decided a very important case that impacts directly upon DUI trials.  In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Court held that lab reports which are used as evidence in trial are “testimonial” as defined by Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Alaska.  What this means for prosecutors is that the witness must be called as a witness and be subject to cross-examination.  The majority consisted of Justices Scalia, Stevens, Souter, Thomas and Ginsburg.  Justice Kennedy wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices Alito, Roberts and Breyer.

The dissent attempts to create a new category of “neutral scientific witnesses” who could not possibly have the biases of normal witnesses.  Justice Scalia skewers this argument,

“Nor is it evident that what respondent calls “neutral scientific testing” is as neutral or as reliable as respondent suggests. Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation. According to a recent study conducted under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, “[t]he majority of [laboratories producing forensic evidence] are administered by law enforcement agencies, such as police departments, where the laboratory administrator reports to the head of the agency.” National Research Council of the National Academies, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 6–1 (Prepublication Copy Feb. 2009) (hereinafter National Academy Report). And “[b]ecause forensic scientists often are driven in their work by a need to answer a particular question related to the issues of a particular case, they sometimes face pressure to sacrifice appropriate methodology for the sake of expediency.”  A forensic analyst responding to a request from a law enforcement official may feel pressure—or have an incentive—to alter the evidence in a manner favorable to the prosecution.”

The opinion gives the states the option of either 1) having the experts available at every case, or 2) giving notice of their intention to use the expert thereby giving the defendant a chance to object.  The rule is simple: If the prosecutor wants the evidence they must produce the witness.

If you find yourself facing a DUI trial, make sure your lawyer knows about the most recent decisions that affect this ever-changing area of law.  Charles M. Rowland II prides himself on staying abreast of decisions in the DUI/OVI field.  If you are in need of representation, please contact him at 937-879-9542 or get additional information by visiting  www.DaytonDUI.com, www.FairbornDUI.com, www.XeniaDUI.com, www.SpringfieldDUI.com, www.RecklessOperation.com, www.OhioSpeedTrap.com or www.DrivingUnderSuspension.com.