ILNews

SCOTUS: Lab techs must testify

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A decision today from the Supreme Court of the United States will have an immediate impact on Indiana, where state justices are considering at least two cases about whether lab technicians who've tested evidence in a case must appear on the stand.

The nation's high court offered an answer to that question: Yes, those techs must testify.

In its 5-4 ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, No. 07-591, the majority determined that forensic analysts must be called to offer "testimonial evidence" about any report they prepare before that can be admitted as trial evidence.

Turning to its holdings in the cases of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004), and Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), the majority used its rational that the trial use of out-of-court statements made to police by an unavailable witness violates that criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him or her.

Luis Melendez-Diaz was arrested while making a cocaine sale in a parking lot, and at trial bags of cocaine he'd allegedly distributed were introduced into evidence along with drug-analysis certificates prepared by a lab technician who identified them as cocaine. A jury convicted Melendez-Diaz of distributing and trafficking cocaine, but he appealed on the Sixth Amendment grounds under the Crawford ruling. The state's intermediate appellate court rejected those claims in an unpublished opinion, referring to them in a footnote as being "without merit," and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court also denied his appeal. But this SCOTUS ruling changes that.

"The Sixth Amendment does not permit the prosecution to prove its case via ex parte out-of-court affidavits, and the admission of such evidence against Melendez-Diaz was error," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in its 61-page opinion that reverses and remands the Massachusetts appellate judgment.

Dissenting, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito joined Justice Anthony Kennedy, who opined that the majority's ruling "sweeps away an accepted rule governing the admission of scientific evidence ... (that) extends across at least 35 states and six Federal Courts of Appeals. ...

"It is remarkable that the Court so confidently disregards a century of jurisprudence," Justice Kennedy wrote. "We learn now that we have misinterpreted the Confrontation Clause - hardly an arcane or seldom-used provision of the Constitution - for the first 218 years of its existence."

Later, he wrote, "The Court's opinion suggests this will be a body of formalistic and wooden rules, divorced from precedent, common sense, and the underlying purpose of the Clause. Its ruling has vast potential to disrupt criminal procedures that already give ample protections against the misuse of scientific evidence."

With this ruling, the Indiana Supreme Court can now move forward on its own set of cases that have likely been held up as a result of this pending SCOTUS decision. Those cases are: Richard Pendergrass v. State, No. 71S03-0808-CR-445, which justices heard arguments on in October after the Indiana Court of Appeals had decided last summer that his rights weren't violated by admitting evidence without testimony; and Ricky L. Jackson v. State, No. 27A02-0710-CR-902, which is pending transfer after the Indiana Court of Appeals decided last summer that the forensic report shouldn't be admitted without the lab technician's testimony.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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