ILNews

AG wants Melendez-Diaz overturned

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Attorney General's Office is joining several states in co-authoring an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court of the United States to modify or overturn its decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.

In June, the SCOTUS ruled that forensic analysts must be called to offer "testimonial evidence" about any report they prepare before it can be admitted as evidence. The Indiana Supreme Court split in its ruling in Pendergrass v. State, No. 71S03-0808-CR-445, as to whether the failure of a lab technician who processed DNA evidence to testify at Richard Pendergrass' trial violated his Sixth Amendment rights.

The majority interpreted the SCOTUS majority opinion in Melendez-Diaz, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), to say that not everyone who worked on the evidence must be called and the Confrontation Clause gives prosecutors discretion on which evidence to present. The Indiana justices believed Pendergrass' right to confront wasn't violated because the lab technician's supervisor was available for cross-examination.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller believes the Melendez-Diaz precedent could possibly require prosecutors to call lab techs as witnesses in every case where crime-lab reports are relevant, causing slowdowns in trials and added expense.

"If the Melendez-Diaz precedent remains in place, the backlog of cases to be tested will only worsen and many drug charges will get dismissed because the analyst is not available to testify. This can only serve as a detriment to the judicial system and the public's safety," Zoeller said in a statement.

Stephen Johnson with the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council said many issues are still up in the air on Melendez-Diaz. He believes the ruling holds that some elements of proof in a criminal case, including drug analysis, can't be proved simply by introducing a piece of paper with the results, but a "live body" will have to testify. It's who and how many will have to testify that's the issue, he said.

"I do think that some person from a lab will have to testify as to a forensic analysis absent defense waiver," he said. "We don't believe Pendergrass changes that aspect of Melendez-Diaz."

The friend-of-the-court brief filed by the states in Mark A. Briscoe and Sheldon A. Cypress v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 07-11191, does note that the Pendergrass ruling may help ease the burden of presenting lab analysts during cases-in-chief, regardless of whether the defendant wanted to cross examine the analyst.

Briscoe asks the SCOTUS to decide whether Mark Briscoe and Sheldon Cypress waived their Confrontation Clause rights by failing to demand that the forensic analyst be available for trial; whether the clause requires the prosecution to present the testimony of its witnesses during its case in chief; and whether the clause precludes exhibits from being introduced before the witness's live testimony.

The SCOTUS is scheduled to hear arguments in Briscoe in January 2010.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT