Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, No. 07-591

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the above-styled case.  The transcript is here.

"Court Weighs How Juries Should Hear Lab Evidence," is Adam Liptak's report in today's New York Times.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday in a case that could have broad implications for how prosecutors present evidence from crime laboratories at trial.

Many states allow reports from crime laboratories to be submitted to juries through written certifications rather than live testimony. That practice is convenient, but it may run afoul of the Sixth Amendment’s “confrontation clause,” which guarantees criminal defendants the right to confront the witnesses against them.

Several justices seemed to struggle to find the dividing line between the kinds of information that must be presented through live testimony and those that are routine, reliable or tangential enough to require only a written certification. The justices also indicated that they were aware of recent scandals at major crime laboratories involving the flawed analysis of blood, hair, ballistics and other evidence.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer cited a supporting brief filed by the National Innocence Network in the case, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, No. 07-591. The brief, Justice Breyer said, “is filled with horror stories of how police labs or other labs have really been way off base and moreover really wrong.”

“They lost the results,” Justice Breyer said of the laboratories. “They got it all wrong.”

The case arose from the conviction of Luis E. Melendez-Diaz on cocaine trafficking charges in Massachusetts. Part of the evidence against him was a laboratory report stating that bags of white powder said to have belonged to him contained cocaine. Prosecutors submitted the report with only an analyst’s certificate.

Martha Coakley, the attorney general of Massachusetts, argued that requiring live testimony from laboratory analysts “would be an undue burden with very little benefit to the defendant.”

"Argument analysis: As Kennedy goes…," is Lyle Denniston's report at SCOTUS Blog.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s reputation as a “swing” vote in the Supreme Court is well known, and frequently validated. It is not often, though, that the tendency to swing is evident as early as the oral argument in a case. But on Monday, in the space of an hour, Kennedy saw the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts  (07-591) from two entirely different perspectives. In the end, though, Massachusetts seemed to be on the losing end of his switch.  Seemingly somewhat exasperated with each side, Kennedy’s patience wore thinnest when the Massachusetts attorney general was at the lectern.

The case, at its core, is simple: is a crime lab report a form of testimony, so that the prosecution may not use it at trial to buttress its case unless the technician or chemist who prepared it is at the trial to defend the test results under cross-examination?

"Coakley: Forensics testimony a burden," is by Boston Globe correspondent Jenny Paul.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley told the Supreme Court yesterday that requiring forensic scientists to testify at criminal trials where their reports are presented as evidence would place an undue burden on the state's already-backlogged drug testing system.

Misdemeanor drug prosecutions in Massachusetts "would grind to a halt," said Coakley, who was arguing before the Supreme Court for the first time.

The case centers on whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him applies to the admission of drug analysis certificates as evidence at criminal trials. If it does, the analysts who prepare the reports could be required to provide live testimony in court.

The case involves Luis Melendez-Diaz, who was convicted in 2004 of trafficking cocaine and sentenced to three years in prison. Boston police arrested Melendez-Diaz in 2001 and seized bags filled with powdery substances, later determined to be cocaine by chemists at the state Department of Public Health's drug analysis laboratory. The drug analysis certificates were presented as evidence at Melendez-Diaz's trial, but the analysts who prepared the reports did not testify. He is now appealing the verdict to the Supreme Court.

The justices acknowledged that their decision could have far-reaching effects on the backlog and workload at crime labs nationally.

"This is a very, very substantial burden" if the court rules that states must have analysts testify at trials, Justice Anthony Kennedy said.

"Court weighs nature of lab evidence," is Joan Biskupic's report in USA Today.

"Introducing forensic laboratory reports (without live witnesses) is the modern equivalent of trial by affidavit," said Stanford University law professor Jeffrey Fisher, representing Luis Melendez-Diaz, who was convicted of cocaine trafficking. Fisher challenged a Massachusetts policy, similar to others nationwide, that allows forensic analysts to submit certificates — here, a report on the authenticity and quantity of cocaine seized — without testifying.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley countered that forcing lab workers to testify would be costly and time-consuming. "Misdemeanor drug prosecutions would essentially grind to a halt," she said.

The question is whether lab reports should be considered "testimonial," rather than objective public records. If they are testimonial, they would be subject to the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.

In recent years, the court has more broadly interpreted the right to confront witnesses. Justice Antonin Scalia, who was among those sympathetic to Melendez-Diaz's claim, has taken the lead in making it harder for witnesses' statements to be introduced without testimony.

Thirty-five states are siding with Massachusetts. One of the groups backing Melendez-Diaz, the National Innocence Network, says forensic evidence is wrongly assumed to be infallible. The group asserts that in most of the exonerations it has obtained, forensic errors, such as blood type testing, played a key role in conviction.