Crime Lab Ruling Under Review, as reported by the New York Times: “Just six months after a narrowly divided Supreme Court announced that crime lab reports may not be used against criminal defendants at trial unless the analysts responsible for them testify, the court heard arguments on Monday about how the new system is working and whether it needs to be refined or rejected.” The case under review is Briscoe v. Virginia.
Just last June, the Supreme Court decided in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts that when prosecutors rely on lab reports they must call the experts who prepared them to testify. This important ruling is based on a defendant’s right to be confronted with witnesses against him. The US Supreme Court, in its new composition, may revisit it. The NY Times released an editorial stating that the justices should reaffirm that the Sixth Amendment requires prosecutors to call the lab analysts whose work they rely on.
I agree. As a crime lab technician, your work is part of an accusatorial system in which witnesses are called to back up and testify to the truth of their statements. “The harder questions involve the burdens that may be placed on defendants who do say they want the opportunity to question analysts. The court’s decision in Briscoe, expected by late June, will probably offer lower courts and state legislatures guidance on that question.”