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

15 Barry L. Rev. 121 (2010)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts: The Future of the Confrontation Clause

handle is hein.journals/barry15 and id is 123 raw text is: MELENDEZ-DIAZ V. MASSACHUSETTS: THE FUTURE OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE Joseph Henn' I. INTRODUCTION The latest development in the saga of the ever encompassing Confrontation Clause comes from the Supreme Court, via a five-four vote, in the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (Melendez-Diaz), which takes the Sixth Amendment to lengths hard to fathom.2 Simply stated, the Confrontation Clause now demands that a laboratory technician, who merely performs a routine analysis to determine if a substance is an illegal drug, is considered a testimonial witness against the accused. Under the guise of the Confrontation Clause, the accused has the constitutional right to haul the technician into court. The purpose of this article is to show the error in the majorities' decision in Melendez-Diaz by approaching the issue from two perspectives. First, by investigating the cases and legal doctrines created by the Supreme Court in the years preceding Melendez-Diaz, I will demonstrate why the case was erroneously decided.3 Second, I will explore the possibility that the majority decision was correct and thus the recently devised standard in Crawford v. Washington (Crawford) is inherently flawed . This article will discuss the prior application of law before the Melendez-Diaz decision, offer analysis on the string of cases that led to the Melendez-Diaz decision, and evaluate where the law went wrong. Finally, this article will introduce a revised legal doctrine on what should be considered testimonial evidence against an accused based upon sound policy considerations and the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused. II. THE MASSACHUSETTS LAW PRIOR TO THE DECISION IN MELENDEZ-DIAZ Prior to the decision handed down in Melendez-Diaz,5 the country had nearly five years to conform to the sweeping change that the Crawford opinion made to the Confrontation Clause.6 Only one year after the Crawford decision, Massachu- setts was confronted with the case of Commonwealth v. Verde (Verde), which was essentially indistinguishable from the issue in Melendez-Diaz. When Verde I. J.D. candidate, 2011, Barry University Dwayne 0. Andres School of Law; B.A. (English Literature), B.A. (History), University of Central Florida, 2008. 2. See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009). 3. See Id. 4. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 5. See Melendez-Diaz, 129 S. Ct. at 2527. 6. See Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

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