Article provided by Access Legal

Visit us at www.utahaccesslegal.com

A recent US Supreme Court decision has greatly strengthened the ability of criminal defense attorneys to defend their clients against criminal charges and suppress the evidence against them. In a close 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts that defendants must be given the opportunity to question analysts who prepare crime lab reports. Such reports are often prepared and entered into evidence in criminal cases, dealing with  everything from blood and breath samples used in drunk driving cases to DNA and blood splatter results used in murder cases.

Prior to this decision, crime lab reports could be entered into evidence without having an analyst, technician or other person involved in preparing the report testify about its contents.

The Melendez-Diaz Opinion

In Melendez-Diaz, a divided Supreme Court decided that crime lab reports are a form of testimony that should be subject to the requirements of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. Under the Confrontation Clause, defendants facing criminal charges must be given the opportunity to confront witnesses who are testifying against them. Thus, prosecutors who want to enter crime lab reports into evidence at trial must make the analyst or technician who prepared the report available for questioning by the defendant.

The Melendez-Diaz opinion answers some of the unanswered questions remaining after an earlier Confrontation Clause decision issued by the Supreme Court in 2004. In Crawford v. Texas, the justices ruled that previous testimonial statements cannot be admitted at trial unless the defendant had been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. If defendants had not been given this opportunity, then the evidence could not be admitted because it would be a violation of the Confrontation Clause. The Court, however, did not give any guidance as to what type of statements were considered testimonial, leaving state and federal courts on their own to make this determination.

The Melendez-Diaz majority opinion written by Justice Scalia questioned the reliability of the scientific evidence contained in crime lab reports and the neutrality of the analysts who collect and compile the information for use in trials. The opinion stated that allowing defendants to cross-examine the witnesses would test the underlying assumptions of reliability and neutrality in these reports and uncover any inaccuracies in the testing methods and results.

Suppression Hearings after Melendez-Diaz

While the dissenting opinion in Melendez-Diaz centered on how the majority's decision would result in over-burdening the criminal justice system, the real-world applications of the case are likely to be felt in suppression hearings.

Suppression hearings are a special type of court process in which defense attorneys request certain types of evidence be excluded from trial because the evidence was obtained illegally. In order for the prosecution to use evidence against a defendant, the evidence must have been legally obtained; the person or agency that collected the evidence must have followed the law in gathering it. Suppression hearings are an invaluable tool to protect the legal rights of criminal defendants and ensure that the prosecution follows the letter of the law.

The Melendez-Diaz opinion gives defense attorneys a new ground to argue for suppression of evidence that has been collected and processed in criminal lab reports. Now attorneys can bring in the chemists, lab techs and other analysts who compiled the reports and question the reliability of their testing methods and conclusions.

In an attempt to avoid lengthy suppression hearings that are likely to have unfavorable results, some prosecutors may offer favorable plea deals or dismiss the charges altogether. Since defense attorneys will be able to question not only the results of crime lab reports, but also those responsible for preparing them, criminal defendants have much to gain from the Melendez-Diaz opinion.

Conclusion

There has been some discussion of the possibility of the Melendez-Diaz victory for criminal defendants being short-lived. For the next session, the Supreme Court has accepted a case — Briscoe, et al., v. Virginia — that revisits the issues considered in Melendez-Diaz. Generally, the Supreme Court does not revisit the same constitutional issue within such a short time frame. Some commentators believe that the newest member of the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor, could provide the additional vote needed to overturn the Melendez-Diaz opinion and that this may be the impetus for the Court deciding to hear the Briscoe case.

However, until the Supreme Court issues a decision in Briscoe, the holding in Melendez-Diaz remains the law and an important victory for criminal defendants and their attorneys.