Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Grits for Breakfast

Criminal Law

: Grits for Breakfast

Pragmatism vs. Confrontation frames SCOTUS' lab report debate

From this excellent SCOTUSBlog analysis by Lyle Denniston, it sounds like Justice Kennedy and a majority on the high court in the Melendez-Diaz vs. Massachussetts case are leaning toward requiring crime lab workers to testify instead of just forwarding their written lab reports. Said Denniston SCOTUSBlog:The case, at its core, is simple: is a crime lab report a form of testimony, so that the prosecution may not use it at trial to buttress its case unless the technician or chemist who prepared it is at the trial to defend the test results under cross-examination?Justice Scalia was the most ardent champion of requiring confrontation, reports Denniston, while the main concerns were pragmatic: Would the requirement overburden crime labs that in most cases (as in Texas) already experience significant backlogs? Even so, Scalia agreed with the argument put forward by Melendez-Diaz's attorney, as quoted in USA Today:"Introducing forensic laboratory reports (without live witnesses) is the modern equivalent of trial by affidavit," said Stanford University law professor Jeffrey Fisher, representing Luis Melendez-DiazIndeed, pragmatic concerns about lab volume - not any legal argument - appeared to be the primary factor weighing in the state's favor, reported the Boston Globe:The justices acknowledged that their decision could have far-reaching effects on the backlog and workload at crime labs nationally...continue to full post

Full post as published by Grits for Breakfast on November 11, 2008 (boomark / email).