![\"\"](\"http:\/\/change-production.s3.amazonaws.com\/photos\/wordpress_copies\/criminaljustice\/2010\/01\/lab.jpg\" "\\"lab\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in a case that could challenge last term\u2019s groundbreaking decision granting criminal defendants the right to call forensic analysts as witnesses.<\/p>\n
Seven months ago, the court ruled, in a 5-4 decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts<\/em><\/a>, that under the Confrontation Clause of the constitution, prosecutors can\u2019t 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\u2019s case, asking for a reversal of the decision in Melendez-Diaz.<\/p>\n Today\u2019s case, Briscoe\u00a0 et. al. v. Virginia<\/em><\/a>, could provide a window for a slim majority of the court to limit last term\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Melendez-Diaz<\/em> 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<\/a>. Without the right to challenge a forensic analyst, defendants are at a disadvantage when prosecutors throw flashy — but questionable — CSI antics into a trial.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n An editorial in today\u2019s New York Times<\/a> calls on the court to uphold the Melendez-Diaz <\/em>decision:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n