The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008-2009 term featured three significant opinions that have an impact on white-collar practice. Despite the fact that many believe the current Court is conservative in criminal matters, two of those three decisions were decided in favor of defendants. The first deals with the admissibility of scientific forensic reports which offer evidence against a defendant and the constitutional right to confrontation. The second addresses the Double Jeopardy Clause and a defendant’s exposure to reprosecution when a jury has rendered an acquittal on some counts, yet hung on the others. Finally, the Supreme Court addressed the meaning of “aggravated felony” in connection with economic crimes as contained in the immigration statute allowing for the deportation of an individual convicted of such a felony.
In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts,1 the Court discussed the impact of Crawford v. Washington on certificates introduced to support government test results. In Crawford, the Court held that testimonial statements are inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the declarant appears at trial or the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine an unavailable declarant.2 The question presented in Melendez-Diaz was whether affidavits or certificates reporting the results of forensic analysis are “testimonial,” rendering the affiants “witnesses” subject to the defendant’s right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.
