home

Supreme Court Leaves Melendez-Diaz Intact

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:19:04 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In June, 2009, the Supreme Court decided Melendez-Diaz, (opinion here) holding that the defense had a right to live testimony of the Government's chemist in a drug trial under the 6th Amendment's right to confront witnesses.

In an unusual action, it decided to rehear oral arguments on the issue in Briscoe v. Virgina. The arguments were held two weeks ago.

Today the Supreme Court vacated the opinion in Briscoe v. Virginia and remanded the case. (Order here.)So Melendez-Diaz remains good law. The issue in Briscoe:

If a state allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of a forensic laboratory analysis, without presenting the testimony of the analyst who prepared the certificate, does the state avoid violating the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by providing that the accused has a right to call the analyst as his own witness?

< Monday Morning Open Thread | General Noriega Can Be Extradited to France >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Supreme Court Leaves Melendez-Diaz Intact | 11 comments (11 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Question (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 01:14:02 PM EST
    The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial (which is usually defined by state statute).  For the non-lawyers, this is to ensure that the state doesn't keep delaying the trial for those defendants who are already incarcerated (pre-trial).  (Most state statutes require that an incarcerated defendant be brought to trial within 6 months to a year).  So, when the prosecution asks for a delay in the proceedings, the clock keeps ticking.  But when the defense asks for a delay, the clock is stopped, and the state is not penalized.

    Here's my question:  How will this ruling  affect the concept of a speedy trial?  For example:  Say a prosecutor has an affadavit of a lab technician that he/she wants to proffer, but the defense wants the prosecution to call the technician. There are only so many hours in a day, so many cases, and so many technicians to work on analyses, so the tech may not be available. Does the clock stop on the speedy trial requirements because the defense is technically asking for the delay, or is the state penalized?

    Like most constitutional rights, (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 02:14:55 PM EST
    ... the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy ("and public") trial provides a minimum baseline.  It is measured from formal accusation to the beginning of the trial.  Only an extreme and unjustified delay, despite defense requests to schedule and/or begin the trial, will constitute a constitutional violation.  The detailed regulation of how many days are allowed before the trial begins when the defendant is (or is not) detained, what counts as excluded time, and how much, and who the delay is charged against, etc., varies tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (state or federal? what state?) and is governed by that jurisdiction's statutes and rules of procedure.  

    By the way, I don't agree -- nor does the Supreme Court -- that the principal objective of the Speedy Trial Clause is to reduce any period of pretrial detention.  The focus is as much on the defendant's potential loss of access to witnesses or the accuracy of their memories, and the anxiety and other personal costs of waiting for vindication or resolution of the accusation.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 02:37:23 PM EST
    Do you think there will be future Supreme Court cases by defense attorneys who will argue that their clients' Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial were violated because they (the defense attorneys) wanted the state to call lab techs, who may or may not have been available in a timely manner?  Do you think the SC will buy that argument?

    Parent
    No, and no (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 03:10:49 PM EST