By Matthew S. Schwartz — Talk Radio News Service
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses against them, and that includes the technicians who analyze the evidence found at the scene, the Supreme Court ruled today in a 5-4 decision that crossed the court’s ideological lines.
Until today, the Confrontation Clause only guaranteed defendants the right to face witnesses who were explicitly testifying against them; scientists and technicians who merely ran tests and prepared sworn “certificates of analysis” did not need to come to court and face the defendant in person. With today’s ruling, they do.
The word “witnesses” in the Sixth Amendment means anyone who presents testimony against the defendant, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his bench statement discussing his majority opinion, which was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Certificates of Analysis are testimonial statements against the defendant, and so the analysts must be called for cross-examination, the Court ruled.
“Confrontation is designed to weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well,” Scalia wrote. “Serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials.”
GO HERE to read more. This is a very important issue Sheriff Lewis and Davis Ruark need to seriously review.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
There should not be a big deal in this.The techs are in court for each case when called for by the DA office.
ReplyDeleteExpect more plea bargains from Ruark.
ReplyDeleteThe local judges need to read this one also!
ReplyDeleteWith all the bad convictions due to faulty pathollogical findings, this seems to be a good ruling.
ReplyDeleteI was always told criminals have no rights...they forfeit those when they do the crime!
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the criminals are using their "rights" to do wrong
ReplyDeleteBlogger Don't Blame Me I Voted For McCain! said...
ReplyDeleteI was always told criminals have no rights...they forfeit those when they do the crime!
This is why it's good McCain didn't get in. The LAW presumes "innocent until PROVEN guilty." That's what the trial is about, nutjob. You have the rights UNTIL you're proven to be a criminal.
I know it's hard for people like you to understand, and I agree too many scum get cut loose, but the laws are there to protect all of us. Yes, innocent people have been arrested. Some have been convicted. Some were released after 10 or 20 years in jail!
If that were you, you'd sure as hell pray to God that the rights you have by the Constitution aren't abused.
Hey idiots, they're not criminals until the "guilty" verdict.
ReplyDeleteThis Supreme Court opinion does not change anything in the State of Maryland. This has been the procedure in Maryland for at least the past 30 years. As I understand it, about 1/3 of the States already allowed a criminal defendant the right to demand the presence of lab technicians. Admittedly, criminal defendants abuse this tactic, but that is their right and sometimes it is necessary.
ReplyDeleteCriminals have more constitutional rights than we do... I know this because my father is a corrections officer in another part of the country and whoa to you if you violate any of them...
ReplyDelete