Amici briefs for the petitioner in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts elaborate on the constitutionality of the use of forensic reports in lieu of forensic examiner testimony
Yesterday we noted that the petitioner in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (No. 07-591) filed its brief on the issue:
"Whether a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is ‘testimonial’ evidence subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)."
Petitioner’s Brief on the Merits. At present four amici briefs have been filed in support of the Petitioner. Links to these briefs and a brief synopsis of their arguments are noted in the chart below:
| Amici and Link to Brief | Synopsis of Argument |
|---|
Professor Richard D. Friedman (Univ. of Michigan)
Friedman Amicus Brief | - Forensic laboratory reports like the ones in this case are testimonial because they are prepared in contemplation of use in prosecution
- The certificates satisfied any applicable requirement of formality - but a statement made in anticipation of use in prosecution should satisfy any such requirement
- Government officials were authors of the reports involved here - but government involvement in creation of the reports was not essential to characterize them as testimonial
- Characterizing a forensic laboratory report as a business or official record does not negate its testimonial character
- In fact, the certificates purported to relate the current condition of the substances being tested does not negate their testimonial character
- Characterizing the certificates as non-discretionary, non-adversarial, or non-accusatory does not implicate their testimonial nature
- Arguments based on the supposed reliability of the evidence and impracticality of providing confrontation are legally immaterial and factually inaccurate
|
Brief of Law Professors
(Jennifer Mnookin (UCLA); Samuel Estreicher (NYU))
Law Professors' Amicus Brief |
- Recognizing the testimonial character of forensic evidence will not unduly burden the criminal justice system
- Only a tiny fraction of criminal cases is likely to be affected
- Burdens relating to forensic evidence are and will continue to be alleviated by stipulations and waivers
- Notice-and-demand statutes
- Burdens can arguably be further mitigated by scheduling arrangements and by the use at trial of fully-confronted videotape records of expert Testimony
- Crawford's reasoning may permit surrogate expert testimony regarding forensic reports, further reducing the practical impact of a holding that forensic reports are testimonial
|
National Innocence Network (Timothy P. O'Toole)
Amicus Brief by National Innocence Network |
- The trials of the wrongly convicted reveal a widespread pattern of forensic errors
- Pre-DNA serology evidence - chronic mistakes and overreaching
- Hair comparison analysis - bad science and overreaching
- Drylabbing - A chronic failing coins a term for forensic fabrication
- Individual examples of forensic errors infecting the wrongful conviction cases
- Systemic reviews triggered by the DNA exonerations have confirmed pervasive forensic errors and misleading forensic reports
- The Confrontation Guarantee provides a vital safeguard for exposing, during the criminal trial itself, the sorts of widespread forensic errors revealed by the DNA exonerations and their aftermath
|
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Association of Federal Defenders
National College for DUI Defense
(Frances H. Pratt)
Amicus Brief of Associations |
- The Confrontation Clause ensures the reliability of forensic reports
- Cross-examination is critically important for the jury's role as trier-of-fact
|
Share this post with colleagues on:
For More On Related Issues:
Comments
Post new comment