Can Crime Lab Reports be Permitted Without Cross-Examination?
|
|
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether crime lab reports can be introduced at trial without permitting defendants to cross-examine the forensic experts who prepared them. The question is before the high court in the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.
In this case, the defendant, Luis Melendez-Diaz, was arrested after making a cocaine sale in a parking lot in Dorchester, Massachusetts. During the trial, bags of cocaine allegedly distributed by the defendant were introduced into evidence, along with drug analysis certificates prepared by a lab technician who analyzed the drugs and identified them as cocaine.
Melendez-Diaz subsequently was convicted of distributing and trafficking cocaine, in violation of Massachusetts law. He appealed, among other things, arguing that the prosecution’s introduction of the drug analysis certificates violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Crawford v. Washington. In Crawford, the high court held that “testimonial” evidence cannot be introduced at trial unless the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness providing the evidence. Melendez-Diaz contended that the lab analysis is “testimonial” evidence, and therefore, Crawford required the lab technician to testify about the results and be subject to cross-examination. The State took a different view, arguing that in the case of Commonwealth v. Verde, Massachusetts had ruled that lab reports were not testimonial. Both the Massachusetts Court of Appeals and the Massachusetts Supreme Court denied Melendez-Diaz’s appeal, prompting him to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, which it agreed to do.
As indicated above, the high court heard oral arguments in the case on Monday. Court watchers report that the justices seemed to favor Melendez-Diaz’s position rather than the State’s. Although Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley warned the justices that requiring lab technicians to testify would be overly burdensome given the large number of drug prosecutions, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that nearly two dozen states, including California, currently give defendants an opportunity to cross-examine lab employees. Justice Stephen Breyer and Criminal Defense Investigators also questioned the reliability of some of the labs, saying newspapers have reported stories in which various lab “got it all wrong.”
The case is Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 07-591. A decision is expected by June of next year.
