The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in a case that could challenge last term’s groundbreaking decision granting criminal defendants the right to call forensic analysts as witnesses.
Seven months ago, the court ruled, in a 5-4 decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, that under the Confrontation Clause of the constitution, prosecutors can’t simply enter lab reports as evidence without giving defendants a right to cross-examine the analyst who conducted the tests. Since the decision came down, prosecutors have complained that the new rule puts an unmanageable burden on them — and 26 states join Virginia is today’s case, asking for a reversal of the decision in Melendez-Diaz.
Today’s case, Briscoe et. al. v. Virginia, could provide a window for a slim majority of the court to limit last term’s decision. The makeup of the court has changed — Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a former prosecutor, has replaced David Souter, a member of the majority in Melendez-Diaz.
Melendez-Diaz protected a critical right for defendants in criminal cases, and it should be upheld. The case has had most its most immediate impact in drug cases, but it also ramifications in violent crimes. More than half of the wrongful convictions overturned through DNA testing to date were caused in part by faulty forensics. Without the right to challenge a forensic analyst, defendants are at a disadvantage when prosecutors throw flashy — but questionable — CSI antics into a trial.
An editorial in today’s New York Times calls on the court to uphold the Melendez-Diaz decision:
If the court changes the rule, it would be a significant setback for civil liberties, and not just in cases involving lab evidence. Prosecutors might use the decision to justify offering all sorts of affidavits, videotaped statements and other evidence from absent witnesses.
And Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has an excellent analysis on the case’s background and a handicap on the likely outcomes. Briscoe involves a Virginia law that requires prosecutors to give notice that they plan to introduce scientific evidence, and shifts the burden to defense to subpoena the analysts. If the defense intends to call the analyst, the states pays for her to appear. Although the Melendez-Diaz ruling specifically found that a defendant’s ‘ability to subpoena the analysts … whether pursuant to state law or the Compulsory Process Clause — is no substitute for the right of confrontation,’ today’s case could narrow this language.
Denniston writes that an outright reversal is unlikely, but it is quite possible that the justices may limit the scope of Melendez-Diaz with today’s case. That would be a significant setback for the equal rights of defendants facing trial.
Photo: Jurvetson