During argument at the Supreme Court on Monday in a confrontation clause case, the justices and attorneys engaged in some spirited exchanges concerning whether defense lawyers — especially those “repeat attorneys” who appear often before the same judges and prosecutors — would be likely to take undue advantage of a rule requiring forensic technicians to testify when lab reports are admitted as evidence in drug cases.
The case, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, asks whether a forensic report identifying a substance as cocaine constitutes “testimonial” evidence under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. Under the Court’s 2004 Crawford v. Washington case and subsequent confrontation clause rulings, if the laboratory report is deemed “testimonial,” then the analyst who performed the test must testify at trial and be subject to cross-examination.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
