About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

36 New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 263 (2010)
Beyond the Crime Laboratory: The Admissibility of Unconfirmed Forensic Evidence in Arson Cases

handle is hein.journals/nejccc36 and id is 267 raw text is: Beyond the Crime Laboratory: The Admissibility of Unconfirmed Forensic Evidence in Arson Cases Bruce L. Ottley* I. THE RELIABILITY OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE In June 2009, the Supreme Court decided Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.' Writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia held that three certificates of analysis issued by a Massachusetts state crime laboratory, reporting the results of the analysis of nineteen small plastic bags allegedly containing cocaine, were within the core class of testimonial statements covered by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.2 As such, the certificates were functionally identical to live, in-court testimony.3 Thus, Justice Scalia concluded that the forensic analysts who prepared the certificates were witnesses for purposes of the Sixth Amendment and that the prosecution had an obligation to make the analysts available so that the defendant could confront and cross-examine them at trial.4 Although the defendant in Melendez-Diaz was charged with * Professor, DePaul University College of Law. B.A., University of Missouri-Kansas City; M.A., J.D., University of Iowa; L.L.M., Columbia University. Co-author (with John F. Decker) of ARSON LAW AND PROSECUTION (Carolina Academic Press) (2009). 1. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 2527 (2009). 2. Id. at 2530-32. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment states that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. CONST. amend. VI. 3. Melendez-Diaz, 129 S. Ct. at 2532. 4. Id. Four days after issuing its decision in Melendez-Diaz, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Briscoe v. Virginia. Briscoe v. Virginia, 130 S.Ct. 1316 (2010). Briscoe gave the Court an opportunity to decide whether a State has fulfilled its obligation under the Confrontation Clause if a prosecutor introduces a certificate of laboratory analysis without presenting the analyst who prepared it if the defense is provided the right to call the analyst as its own witness. Id. However, the Supreme Court did not decide that issue and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with Melendez-Diaz. Id. In Briscoe, which is known as Magruder v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 283, 288-307 (Va. 2008), at the state level, the Virginia courts found no error in the admission of the laboratory certificate alone

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most