Yeah, like this guy.

FTA: And nationwide, thousands of drug cases might have to be thrown out of court annually.

This is enough for me. Well done, Scalia (never thought I'd say that) and your colleagues. Chalk one up for individual liberty.

Just another example of how the legal system continues to fark it up when dealing with science.

Get me the Batman.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concur-
ring opinion. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROB-
ERTS, C. J., and BREYER and ALITO, JJ., joined.

Now there's an interesting break down!

jbuist: SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concur-
ring opinion. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROB-
ERTS, C. J., and BREYER and ALITO, JJ., joined.

Now there's an interesting break down!

I thought the same thing.

Well done Scalia and Co.

It's not like it's hard to get a PhD on salary to present your 'science'

jbuist: SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concur-
ring opinion. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROB-
ERTS, C. J., and BREYER and ALITO, JJ., joined.

Now there's an interesting break down!

Wow...don't know when we'll ever see those alliances on a decision again.

NuttierThanEver: Just another example of how the legal system continues to fark it up when dealing with science.

What? This is a great ruling. Instead of juries being told that "this is science, that makes it true," defense attorneys can cross examine the tech who will explain that these tests aren't necessarily perfect.

I am so confused. Why would Scalia and Thomas support this? I agree with the opinion, but it seems unlike them.

Lawyer thread:

Scalia's decision makes no sense to me. How is this not a business records exemption?

sweetmelissa31: I am so confused. Why would Scalia and Thomas support this? I agree with the opinion, but it seems unlike them.

Scalia is a big fan of the Confrontation Clause, if I remember correctly.

The dissenting opinion was pretty brutal:

"It is remarkable that the Court so confidently disregards a century of jurisprudence. We learn now that we have misinterpreted the Confrontation Clause - hardly an arcane or seldom-used provision of the Constitution - for the first 218 years of its existence."

sweetmelissa31:

Why would Scalia and Thomas support this?

Scalia to benefit his mob connections and Thomas, well, because that could be anyone's hair on that can.

kronicfeld: sweetmelissa31: I am so confused. Why would Scalia and Thomas support this? I agree with the opinion, but it seems unlike them.

Scalia is a big fan of the Confrontation Clause, if I remember correctly.

What's your take on DamnYankees question regarding the business records exemption, counselor?

DamnYankees: Scalia's decision makes no sense to me. How is this not a business records exemption?

Even if it were a "business record," which I think is highly dubious, business records aren't magically admissible just because you hold up a document and say "judge, this is a business record." The "record" still has to be authenticated, and the court still has to hear evidence of the things that qualify the document as a business record. Those vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally you need to show - again, through evidence, not mere representations of counsel - that the record was kept in the regular course of business, and that it was in the regular course of business to make that record.

Scalia striking a blow for the rule of law?

Whoda thunk it?

is that just me, or can you all sort of hear Ode to Joy off in the distance?

"enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them" is enough for me. The fact that it means fewer potheads going to jail is just the sweet, delicious icing.

benlonghair: NuttierThanEver: Just another example of how the legal system continues to fark it up when dealing with science.

What? This is a great ruling. Instead of juries being told that "this is science, that makes it true," defense attorneys can cross examine the tech who will explain that these tests aren't necessarily perfect.

You can present the data on the sensitivity and specificity of a test and then present data that sheds light on the risks of false positives of any tests without having to demand that the tech who put the test in a machine 1000 miles away be present to question directly. You want to cross examine the tech that collected the samples? Fine, that makes sense.
But demanding to have a lab tech be present just explain that it was he that but chemical A into beaker B and then hit the switch on the PCR machine is just assinine.

sweetmelissa31
I am so confused. Why would Scalia and Thomas support this? I agree with the opinion, but it seems unlike them.


Thomas supported it because Scalia did.

fnorgby: is that just me, or can you all sort of hear Ode to Joy off in the distance?

"enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them" is enough for me. The fact that it means fewer potheads going to jail is just the sweet, delicious icing.

it also means fewer rapists and serial killers too.

Let's hope this puts a nail into the coffin of red light and speed cameras at the same time.

/i call the speed camera as my next witness

kronicfeld: sweetmelissa31: I am so confused. Why would Scalia and Thomas support this? I agree with the opinion, but it seems unlike them.

Scalia is a big fan of the Confrontation Clause, if I remember correctly.

That is my recollection as well.

DamnYankees: Lawyer thread:

Scalia's decision makes no sense to me. How is this not a business records exemption?

Because if the record is generated at the request of law enforcement, it was prepared specifically for the purpose of a criminal prosecution, i.e. not in the "ordinary course of business," hence, business records exception out, Sixth Amendment in.

NuttierThanEver

it also means fewer rapists and serial killers too

Perhaps prosecutors will now have to focus their efforts on real crimes instead of hauling a bunch of stoners through the justice system then.

I wonder if this will have an impact on the number of drug offenses that get prosecuted. It seems that it might throw a procedural hurdle up for the prosecution that might not make it worth the trouble. But, I'm not an attorney.

NuttierThanEver: fnorgby: is that just me, or can you all sort of hear Ode to Joy off in the distance?

it also means fewer rapists and serial killers too.

NO it goddamn doesn't. Don't be naive. It means that prosecutors will have to prioritize when and where they use the scientific evidence. Murderers and rapists I'm betting are going to be high on that list.

It just might add another reason for defense attorneys to consider not waiving the right to a speedy trial, but as far as I'm concerned that is also a good thing. A right that the system is designed to prevent you from exercising is not being properly observed in the first place.

NuttierThanEver: But demanding to have a lab tech be present just explain that it was he that but chemical A into beaker B and then hit the switch on the PCR machine is just assinine.

If it makes it more difficult for the cops and prosecutors, I say it's a win. Period.

Basically, if it's not a big deal, don't make one out of it. Put your resources into cases worth prosecuting.

This is the dumbest thing ever. Dragging some poor schlub into court because he just happened to handle the sample...the same way he handles dozens of samples a day. Then, what happens if some screwed up jury buys the "reasonable doubt" in the 99.9% accurate test? Every one of that tech's cases suddenly gets a new appeal? Gimme a break. Meanwhile, that tech isn't in the lab dealing with the ALREADY huge backlog of samples (because these days if you DON'T sample something, then it's an automatic win for the defense in the era of CSI juries)...so every other case is completely fuxored.

Yes, it'd be great if we could line up absolutely everyone involved in your conviction and you could ask each one of them "did you do it right this time?" before finally going to jail, but it's just not feasible.

What's next? The secretary in the precinct who typed up your report has to verify that she didn't misspell someone else's name and that she really did mean to type your name into the arrest warrant?

Nabb1: Because if the record is generated at the request of law enforcement, it was prepared specifically for the purpose of a criminal prosecution, i.e. not in the "ordinary course of business," hence, business records exception out, Sixth Amendment in.

I wasn't aware that something made for the purpose of prosecution (which I might also contest is the 'purpose' of these tests) was an exception to the business records exception. I've only taken my one semester of evidence, but is that in there? I would have imagine that since doing drug tests and the like is the entire 'business' of these people, then those records are presumed to be accurate.

Maybe there is a confusion as to who is being called to testify. I think there is a big difference between bringing an expert to say these tests aren't always reliable, and bringing on the lab tech just to confirm that was the paper says is accurate.

kronicfeld: The "record" still has to be authenticated, and the court still has to hear evidence of the things that qualify the document as a business record. Those vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally you need to show - again, through evidence, not mere representations of counsel - that the record was kept in the regular course of business, and that it was in the regular course of business to make that record.

But does anyone doubt a drug test taken by a known lab doesn't qualify? These aren't random sheets of paper, are they? I had assumed these were official test results taken by known labs.

NuttierThanEver: it also means fewer rapists and serial killers too.

No, it means a re-allocation of resources to focus on rapists and serial killers.

VelcroFez: "It is remarkable that the Court so confidently disregards a century of jurisprudence.

I LOVE that rationale. The longer we've been doing something wrong, the more validity the wrong action gains.

Marcus Aurelius: Perhaps prosecutors will now have to focus their efforts on real crimes instead of hauling a bunch of stoners through the justice system then.

perhaps prosecutors will be throwing every damn charge they can at stoners to get them to plea out.

ju66l3r: This is the dumbest thing ever. Dragging some poor schlub into court because he just happened to handle the sample...the same way he handles dozens of samples a day.

Perhaps, if we had actually had some public scrutiny and cross-examination of the lab guys in the courtroom, Harris County crime lab wouldn't have been able to go on falsifying and fabricating evidence for so long.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people would not be in jail.

bud jones: perhaps prosecutors will be throwing every damn charge they can at stoners to get them to plea out.

They already do this.

SchlingFocker: Perhaps, if we had actually had some public scrutiny and cross-examination of the lab guys in the courtroom, Harris County crime lab wouldn't have been able to go on falsifying and fabricating evidence for so long.

I think you should be allowed to call in the lab guys if you have some reasonable reason to believe there was fraud. You shouldn't be able to just go fishing in the courtroom. Do your fishing with your outside investigation.

fnorgby: NO it goddamn doesn't. Don't be naive. It means that prosecutors will have to prioritize when and where they use the scientific evidence. Murderers and rapists I'm betting are going to be high on that list.

Right, because having a lab tech take a whole day to travel and testify in one case isn't going to slow down the process at all.

I'm not sure this is going to have as big an impact as everyone thinks. So long as the lab techs are honest and using techniques and equipment that are well understood, there's not going to be much opportunity to get anything out of them on cross-examination that would lead to a not guilty verdict or a reversal on appeal. If the tech says he performed tests X,Y, and Z, followed all the testing protocols, and calibrated the machines correctly, there's not a lot to argue against.

And on the administrative side, one of the biggest problems in forensic science is the potential for extraneous information about the case to filter over to the scientists running the test - if they know that this DNA analysis is the one piece of evidence that can send a serial killer to prison, they'll be influenced. One possible solution to that is to have some kind of testing supervisor/mediator/case analyst - basically, someone trained in the techniques who strips off all extraneous information about how a specific piece of evidence ties into a specific case, then turns it over to the testers under blind protocols, and then recieves and reports the results from the testers. Under Melendez-Diaz, it might be possible to have the supervisor come out to testify and give the background on the tests performed, and the accused can confront them, while the scientists can keep doing work on other cases for other supervisors.

It's when the forensic scientists practice more art than science, start getting creative, and play loose with the science that they will (hopefully) start getting stomped on. And in such cases, they will deserve it.

bud jones: Marcus Aurelius: Perhaps prosecutors will now have to focus their efforts on real crimes instead of hauling a bunch of stoners through the justice system then.

perhaps prosecutors will be throwing every damn charge they can at stoners to get them to plea out.

And perhaps defense attorneys will know it's a desperate bluff.

DamnYankees: I think you should be allowed to call in the lab guys if you have some reasonable reason to believe there was fraud. You shouldn't be able to just go fishing in the courtroom. Do your fishing with your outside investigation.

Holding the state to its burden isn't "fishing."

MasterThief: I'm not sure this is going to have as big an impact as everyone thinks.

I think the argument is (at least mine is), that since it likely *won't* have much of any impact, doing it is just a waste of time and effort. It's pointlessly clogging up the system and wasting the time of lab techs.

kronicfeld: Holding the state to its burden isn't "fishing."

What a nice little platitude. Come on now - that's not an argument.

DamnYankees: What a nice little platitude. Come on now - that's not an argument.

Platitude? It's a "platitude" for me to point out that we can and should insist on the state meeting its burden of proof when it attempts to take away people's liberty?

Would you say we shouldn't even bother having a police officer/witness testify in person unless there is some reasonable reason to believe that he's making it all up?

DamnYankees: You shouldn't be able to just go fishing in the courtroom.

It's not fishing. It's adequate scrutiny of the evidence provided by the state.

In the case of the Houston crime labs, you had some lab techs who simply didn't know how to even do the procedures. If they were put on the stand and asked to describe the process of sampling and matching DNA, they would have failed miserably.

ju66l3r: This is the dumbest thing ever. Dragging some poor schlub into court because he just happened to handle the sample...the same way he handles dozens of samples a day. Then, what happens if some screwed up jury buys the "reasonable doubt" in the 99.9% accurate test?

I've always been of the opinion that "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer. (Blackstone)"

There's been a lot of talk recently about how forensic science isn't what it's cracked up to be. See dogs following a trail months (sometimes years) later, fabricated bite mark evidence, horribly written brethalyzer code.

The burden of proof has come onto the defendant instead of the prosecution. And the prosecution, most of the time, has all the money and resources to bring to bear. This is a good ruling.

kronicfeld: Platitude? It's a "platitude" for me to point out that we can and should insist on the state meeting its burden of proof when it attempts to take away people's liberty?

Rules of evidence are not the same thing as a burden of proof. Don't confuse them.

kronicfeld: Would you say we shouldn't even bother having a police officer/witness testify in person unless there is some reasonable reason to believe that he's making it all up?

Of course they need to testify, because they actually observed something happen and need to relate it - that's narrative evidence. A lab report is a different kind of evidence. It's not narrative, it's merely analytical.

And by the way, we sometimes do let people 'testify' without them showing up. It's called an affidavit, and it has its uses.

DamnYankees: MasterThief: I'm not sure this is going to have as big an impact as everyone thinks.

I think the argument is (at least mine is), that since it likely *won't* have much of any impact, doing it is just a waste of time and effort. It's pointlessly clogging up the system and wasting the time of lab techs.

And a huge waste of money... Sending off a lab sample could cost the county the cost of the sample AND they might have to pay to have the lab tech come out. I highly doubt rural countys have the money for that sort of thing.

kronicfeld: Holding the state to its burden isn't "fishing."

This!

DamnYankees: And by the way, we sometimes do let people 'testify' without them showing up. It's called an affidavit, and it has its uses.

Yeah, and they're extraordinarily narrow circumstances.

SchlingFocker: In the case of the Houston crime labs, you had some lab techs who simply didn't know how to even do the procedures. If they were put on the stand and asked to describe the process of sampling and matching DNA, they would have failed miserably.

Ok. So if you went to the judge and said "your honor, we have reason to believe the lab tech didn't know what he was doing, because of resaons X, Y, and Z, so we would like to call him", I would let you call him. I just think the presumption should be that in cases like this we should let the records in when there's no reason to doubt them.

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: And by the way, we sometimes do let people 'testify' without them showing up. It's called an affidavit, and it has its uses.

Yeah, and they're extraordinarily narrow circumstances.

No they aren't. You're usiong the word "extraordinaty" very weirdly.

kronicfeld: Scalia is a big fan of the Confrontation Clause, if I remember correctly.

I remember reading about a case where the child sexual assault victim was too scared to testify in front of the defendant, so they had him testify over CCTV. Scalia said that the defendant wasn't able to confront the accuser, so it wasn't constitutional.

This, along with things like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, go to show that no justice is universally awesome or awful.

Same goes for Thomas in cases like Kelo v. New London and Gonzales v. Raich.

benlonghair: And the prosecution, most of the time, has all the money and resources to bring to bear.

That's a joke right?

DamnYankees: I just think the presumption should be that in cases like this we should let the records in when there's no reason to doubt them.

After all, the burden is on the defendant to prove his innocence, right?

Also, wow, the authoritarians are out in force today.

Howie Spankowitz:

Wow...don't know when we'll ever see those alliances on a decision again.

It makes sense - Thomas is Scalia's #1 Knob Slobber and Breyer writes books in response to Scalia's books and borderline makes it a point to disagree with him. So even though C-Tom and Breyer are seemingly voting against their interests here, all it takes is one abnormal Scalia ruling and this is what happens.

kronicfeld: After all, the burden is on the defendant to prove his innocence, right?

Again, for the second time:

Rules of evidence are not the same thing as a burden of proof. Don't confuse them.

Until you understand that difference, stop making that silly argument.

DamnYankees: Until you understand that difference, stop making that silly argument.

Until you get out of law school, don't presume to talk down to me about the law.

Ryan2065: That's a joke right?

You disagree? Let's see, prosecutors office versus legal aid. Who has more resources? Time? Money?

Basically unless you're a well off defendant, yes, the prosecution has way more resources than you.

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: Until you understand that difference, stop making that silly argument.

Until you get out of law school, don't presume to talk down to me about the law.

Hey, it's that argument! Awesome. I'm sure you feel all warm inside now that you've condescended.

benlonghair: Ryan2065: That's a joke right?

You disagree? Let's see, prosecutors office versus legal aid. Who has more resources? Time? Money?

Basically unless you're a well off defendant, yes, the prosecution has way more resources than you.

That isn't even close to what you said.

Not to hijack this too much, but this also seems to suggest computer forensic evidence would also have to be handled by a real trained individual, not just by a cop. Which has been a concern lately to some. "I pointed and clicked my way through grabbing his browser cookies, so therefore he's guilty." Wouldn't fly any more. Julie Amero style prosecutions should be prevented if you require actual forensic skills with computers to present evidence.

This woman is EXACTLY why this is a good ruling.

When The Evidence Lies (new window)

DamnYankees: I just think the presumption should be that in cases like this we should let the records in when there's no reason to doubt them.

In general, you'll never have reason to doubt the validity of the results without scrutinizing the way in which the results are obtained.

The incompetent lab employees were able to operate for years in Houston without being discovered, resulting in hundreds and hundreds of false convictions.

Examination on the stand will easily illustrate when a lab tech doesn't know what the hell they're doing.

A big problem in many jurisdictions is that the lab guys work right alongside police and prosecutors and they all view themselves as part of one big team. That type of environment is not conducive to unbiased analysis of physical evidence.

Justice will best be served by increased scrutiny of the evidence and the methods by which the evidence is obtained.

kronicfeld: Until you get out of law school, don't presume to talk down to me about the law.

Out of interest, what is he saying that's wrong? Is he wrong to say that rules of evidence are not the same thing as burden of proof? Why does that get such a reaction from you?

I'm very conflicted about this ruling, personally. My fiancee is a tech (though doing cancer research), and she sees it as a huge imposition on lab-workers time. However, I think that the benefit of having huge numbers of drug cases not prosecuted is great-- but then, this is a convoluted way to achieve that result.

SchlingFocker: Justice will best be served by increased scrutiny of the evidence and the methods by which the evidence is obtained.

It's a good argument. I'm not fully decided on this issue, so I need to think about it more.

DamnYankees: Rules of evidence are not the same thing as a burden of proof. Don't confuse them.

I can see how this is a rules of evidence thing, but doesn't this change in the rules make it harder for a prosecutor to meet the burden of proof?

"I'm a BAAAAAAAAAAAD Supreme Court Justice...."

benlonghair: Also, wow, the authoritarians are out in force today.

Yeah wtf? I thought, lib or con, we were all going to be in agreement on applauding this ruling.

/That's twice in two weeks I actually thought there'd be a major consensus on something political/legal on fark
//I feel stupider every time I do it

Ryan2065: That isn't even close to what you said.

You're right, it was half misspeaking, half hyperbole. Now you know what I mean.

One way or the other, prosecution has most of the advantages, plus many people are of the opinion "Well he's being prosecuted, and they wouldn't prosecute somebody who wasn't guilty."

Ryan2065: DamnYankees: Rules of evidence are not the same thing as a burden of proof. Don't confuse them.

I can see how this is a rules of evidence thing, but doesn't this change in the rules make it harder for a prosecutor to meet the burden of proof?

Well, indirectly I guess. Whether you've satisfied the burden of proof is determined by evidence you can get into the trial. But the rules of evidence don't really depend on burden - they are more concerned with verification and accuracy, and are sort of blind to the concept of burden.

DamnYankees: Rules of evidence are not the same thing as a burden of proof.

A black-box process that spits out an indisputable "fact" does a pretty damn good job of shifting the burden of proof onto the defense.

Obdicut: I'm very conflicted about this ruling, personally. My fiancee is a tech (though doing cancer research), and she sees it as a huge imposition on lab-workers time. However, I think that the benefit of having huge numbers of drug cases not prosecuted is great-- but then, this is a convoluted way to achieve that result.

Well that sucks, but having police testify about their work is a huge imposition on their time as well.

This ruling does the following:
Forces prosecutions to prioritize more
Allows the defendant to confront ALL of the evidence against them

SchlingFocker: A black-box process that spits out an indisputable "fact" does a pretty damn good job of shifting the burden of proof onto the defense.

There are more ways than having people available to testimony to make it not a black box procedure. If they have to show the actual data, rather than just the results of the data, it might actually achieve more for the defense.

Ryan2065: fnorgby: NO it goddamn doesn't. Don't be naive. It means that prosecutors will have to prioritize when and where they use the scientific evidence. Murderers and rapists I'm betting are going to be high on that list.

Right, because having a lab tech take a whole day to travel and testify in one case isn't going to slow down the process at all.

"slow down the process" isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned. This is exactly what will cause a realignment of resources so that important stuff gets dealt with and unimportant (read: non-violent drug offenses) does not. So yeah, slow that motherfarker right on down.

I don't doubt that it's going to throw a bigass wrench into the works. It's going to seriously fark things up for a while. All the reason we shouldn'ta been doing it that way in the first place. We can't delay the recognition of constitutional rights because it would be *inconvenient* for prosecutors.

DamnYankees: It's a good argument. I'm not fully decided on this issue, so I need to think about it more.

If this helps at all, consider the idea of an independent federal body that conducts random spot checks of labs, retesting random samples and auditing chains of custody.

It removes the "black-box" aspect from the crime labs, but it doesn't place an undue burden on the crime labs to constantly send their lab guys to trials.

I Said: Allows the defendant to confront ALL of the evidence against them

This is a silly argument, was the defendant not allowed to have the lab tech called before?

sweetmelissa31: I am so confused. Why would Scalia and Thomas support this? I agree with the opinion, but it seems unlike them.

I'm very serious when I say that I don't mean any offense here, but many people in this thread are expressing surprise at the split on this opinion or that Scalia and Thomas did something that wasn't designed to turn the US into Nazi Germany. So here it goes; please don't be offended.

If this opinion surprises you, or if you think that ANY member of this Court has a serious political agenda that sways his or her vote, you are deeply ignorant of the way the Court works and the records of these justices. It may not be your fault. Many different groups, including hard news reporters, misrepresent the Court's procedures and the records of its members.

SchlingFocker: If this helps at all, consider the idea of an independent federal body that conducts random spot checks of labs, retesting random samples and auditing chains of custody.

I'm not sure why it would need to be a federal body as opposed to a state bt state thing, but I like the idea of overshight. I sort of assumed there already was oversight. Seems obvious.

Ryan2065: This is a silly argument, was the defendant not allowed to have the lab tech called before?

I think not. It would have been irrelevant.

I Said: Well that sucks, but having police testify about their work is a huge imposition on their time as well.

Yes, but interaction with the law is quite clearly part of police work. They are part of the legal system already.

I'd prefer any number of other alternatives. The only thing you really, really have to do is make the testing double-blind. Doing that while preserving the chain of evidence is tricky, but if you do it right, then you have unimpeachable evidence-- as long as you use negative and positive controls.

One question I'd have about this is where does it end? Let's say a lab worker uses a protocol written by someone else-- does the person who wrote the protocol also have to come and testify about the protocol? If not, why not?

Ryan2065: I Said: Allows the defendant to confront ALL of the evidence against them

This is a silly argument, was the defendant not allowed to have the lab tech called before?

Good point. I take that back.

SchlingFocker: If this helps at all, consider the idea of an independent federal body that conducts random spot checks of labs, retesting random samples and auditing chains of custody.

It removes the "black-box" aspect from the crime labs, but it doesn't place an undue burden on the crime labs to constantly send their lab guys to trials.

I don't believe that all tests require positive and negative controls at the moment, which is a huge problem.

fnorgby: We can't delay the recognition of constitutional rights because it would be *inconvenient* for prosecutors.

Can you say someone's constitutional rights are denied if they do have the right to confront the witness but just choose not to? There is a huge difference between allowing the defense to call the lab tech and forcing the lab tech to go to each and every trial his evidence is used in, even if the defense doesn't want him to come to the trial.

SchlingFocker: DamnYankees: It's a good argument. I'm not fully decided on this issue, so I need to think about it more.

If this helps at all, consider the idea of an independent federal body that conducts random spot checks of labs, retesting random samples and auditing chains of custody.

It removes the "black-box" aspect from the crime labs, but it doesn't place an undue burden on the crime labs to constantly send their lab guys to trials.

That'd be a better idea than this...

DamnYankees: I sort of assumed there already was oversight.

Nothing like there should be for a crime lab.

They required that lab techs pass tests periodically, with the tests being proctored by their supervisor.

You can guess where this went.

I suggested a Federal body simply to ensure standardization among the states.

Bored Horde: It's not like it's hard to get a PhD on salary to present your 'science'

It only requires a tech to show up to testify. No offense to techs, but the headline would be more accurate if it said you have to use scienticians to testify about science.

ju66l3r: What's next? The secretary in the precinct who typed up your report has to verify that she didn't misspell someone else's name and that she really did mean to type your name into the arrest warrant?

None of you defending this ruling want to touch that one? Surprising.

SchlingFocker: I suggested a Federal body simply to ensure standardization among the states.

I'm not sure we'd be able to impose standardization. States have the right to make their own standards re: criminal law. Not on the burden, but on the processes for testing stuff and whatnot.

Obdicut: I don't believe that all tests require positive and negative controls at the moment, which is a huge problem.

In addition to basic incompetence, the Houston Crime Lab also had outright falsification and fabrication of evidence.

Controls wouldn't do much against that.

Independent outside random testing for confirmation would help defend against that.

DamnYankees: SchlingFocker: In the case of the Houston crime labs, you had some lab techs who simply didn't know how to even do the procedures. If they were put on the stand and asked to describe the process of sampling and matching DNA, they would have failed miserably.

Ok. So if you went to the judge and said "your honor, we have reason to believe the lab tech didn't know what he was doing, because of resaons X, Y, and Z, so we would like to call him", I would let you call him. I just think the presumption should be that in cases like this we should let the records in when there's no reason to doubt them.

THAT is *EXACTLY* shifting the burden onto the defense. We know that records get messed up allagoddamtime. There is no reason to assume we can *trust* them unless someone testifies as to their trustworthiness. Ignoring this is (as has been pointed out previously, don't wana take credit for it) what has allowed slipshod practices to become institutionalized in some jurisdictions.

I never have understood why tough-on-crime people (and I don't mean that in any pejorative sense, honestly) don't get angry at the prosecutors/cops FIRST when someone like OJ goes free. THEY are the ones who could have done their jobs right the first time and protected the people against a murderer going free because his rights were violated.

Each defendant in every case has the right to question the validity, provenance and meaning of every single shred of evidence, and they have the right to do it every single time. In my opinion, no exceptions should be tolerated by either side. One group is concerned that bad evidence puts innocent people in jail. The other group is concerned that bad evidence lets guilty people go free. We're on the same goddamned team here.

SchlingFocker: In addition to basic incompetence, the Houston Crime Lab also had outright falsification and fabrication of evidence.

Controls wouldn't do much against that.

Independent outside random testing for confirmation would help defend against that.

Oh, definitely. I didn't mean to come off as though I was arguing against inspection. But positive and negative controls would make it easier for inspectors to detect fraud, as well.

I'd say that in addition to it being double-blind on the lab's side, it would be great if the police did not actually know which lab was performing the analysis. If the samples were sent to a chain-of-evidence-preserving oversight board, who randomly assigned it to a qualified lab. That way the incentive for fraud (for reasons other than incompetence or idiocy) drops away, and you can compare labs to each other well.

fnorgby: THAT is *EXACTLY* shifting the burden onto the defense.

No its not. It's a neutral rule. Test results and other such business records are equally admissable by the defendant and the prosecution. Obvious examples:

Prosuection puts forward a drug test showing the guy was high on coke.
Defense puts forward a voluntary drug test showing that he wasn't high.

Either could happen in a case. There's no bias towards either side in the rule, other than in the particular instance of drug testing, its more likely to be prosecution evidence, and not defense evidence.

Can we please stop confuding the rules of evidence with the burden of proof?

fnorgby:
Each defendant in every case has the right to question the validity, provenance and meaning of every single shred of evidence, and they have the right to do it every single time. In my opinion, no exceptions should be tolerated by either side. One group is concerned that bad evidence puts innocent people in jail. The other group is concerned that bad evidence lets guilty people go free. We're on the same goddamned team here.

Fine, then let this be handled the same way that cops handle moving violations in front of a magistrate:

A generic technician will be responsible for reading the test paper and attesting to the validity of the procedure along with any other notes that the actual technician who generated the report put on the back of the paper.

Otherwise, this ruling would seem to lead to throwing out the "desk cop" approach to reading tickets in traffic court as well. It doesn't seem that you can have desk cops reading tickets to magistrates, but force the actual technician to tell you that you were caught with a pound of real cocaine instead of a "desk technician".

DamnYankees: Prosuection puts forward a drug test showing the guy was high on coke.
Defense puts forward a voluntary drug test showing that he wasn't high.

What do you think the judge would say regarding the evidence if the defense put forward a voluntary drug test that had been performed by a private, certified, individual tester who was on the payroll of the law firm for whom the lawyer works?

DamnYankees: Defense puts forward a voluntary drug test showing that he wasn't high.

Providing he can afford one that will be able to hold water against the state's evidence.

ju66l3r: Fine, then let this be handled the same way that cops handle moving violations in front of a magistrate:

Magistrates are horrible treacherous villains that are generally a mockery of everything that our legal system should stand for.

You should be ashamed for even mentioning them.

d'oh i sux at tags.

SchlingFocker: What do you think the judge would say regarding the evidence if the defense put forward a voluntary drug test that had been performed by a private, certified, individual tester who was on the payroll of the law firm for whom the lawyer works?

They would probably want someone to testify he actually did that. But its slightly different, because the defendant is compelled to give a drug test for the prosecution, and he is observed doing so. The reason you would need a witness for the defendant isn't for the test itself, but for chain of evidence reasons (ie to confirm the urine in the test came from the defendant's body).

It's a slightly different thing. But this is just me thinking out loud.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: Because if the record is generated at the request of law enforcement, it was prepared specifically for the purpose of a criminal prosecution, i.e. not in the "ordinary course of business," hence, business records exception out, Sixth Amendment in.

I wasn't aware that something made for the purpose of prosecution (which I might also contest is the 'purpose' of these tests) was an exception to the business records exception. I've only taken my one semester of evidence, but is that in there? I would have imagine that since doing drug tests and the like is the entire 'business' of these people, then those records are presumed to be accurate.

Something generated specifically in anticipation of litigation is not a "business record" for purposes of the exception. Think: police reports.

i love these threads. criminal law fascinates me

/nothing to contribute

Obdicut: One question I'd have about this is where does it end? Let's say a lab worker uses a protocol written by someone else-- does the person who wrote the protocol also have to come and testify about the protocol? If not, why not?

I am not a lawyer, but from my understanding, no.

Under Crawford, one of the first questions to ask about any piece of evidence is "Is this testimonial?" In other words, did the person who made this statement or wrote this report or whatever do so with the intention of having that statement introduced in court against this particular defendant? If so, then the Confrontation Clause applies, and there has to be an opportunity for cross-examination.

A standard lab protocol is not testimonial, just like the design of a piece of standard lab equipment is not testimonial (and for that matter, just like the legislative debates that went into passing the law that the defendent is being charged under are not testimonial). They are not targeted against a specific person or a specific case. Yes, the protocol or the equipment may have been designed with the idea that it would be useful in court cases in general; but the person who designed them didn't have this particular defendant in mind during the design process.

Now, in cases where there's some weird new form of evidence that's gathered, and the prosecutor says "Hey, crime lab, we really need to know fact X about this evidence", and there's no established protocol or piece of equipment for dealing with it, and somebody at the crime lab calls some scientist and says "How should we do this?", and the scientist says "Well, I think you should do A then B then C -- hey, looks like that works", then the scientist's design of that one-off protocol might very well be testimonial; at the least, it would be a lot more interesting question. But when an ordinary piece of evidence comes in, and Lab Tech X uses Standard Protocol Y to produce Report Z, then it's hard to argue that the author of Standard Protocol Y has given anything resembling "testimony".

DamnYankees: fnorgby: THAT is *EXACTLY* shifting the burden onto the defense.

No its not. It's a neutral rule. Test results and other such business records are equally admissable by the defendant and the prosecution.

I get your point.

So instead of misusing the term "burden of proof" which I shouldn't have done, I'll say "unfairly puts an onus on the defense in a manner that is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the philosophy behind the presumption of innocence."

ok, why do I not see a problem with this SCOTUS ruling? this all seems like a damn good thing for 'we the people'.

Not to be an elitist or anything... but who here isn't glad this didn't get greenlighted? I'm finding the whole thread informative (I know, right? on Fark?) and educational.

KickahaOta: Obdicut: One question I'd have about this is where does it end? Let's say a lab worker uses a protocol written by someone else-- does the person who wrote the protocol also have to come and testify about the protocol? If not, why not?

I am not a lawyer, but from my understanding, no.

Under Crawford, one of the first questions to ask about any piece of evidence is "Is this testimonial?" In other words, did the person who made this statement or wrote this report or whatever do so with the intention of having that statement introduced in court against this particular defendant? If so, then the Confrontation Clause applies, and there has to be an opportunity for cross-examination.

A standard lab protocol is not testimonial, just like the design of a piece of standard lab equipment is not testimonial (and for that matter, just like the legislative debates that went into passing the law that the defendent is being charged under are not testimonial). They are not targeted against a specific person or a specific case. Yes, the protocol or the equipment may have been designed with the idea that it would be useful in court cases in general; but the person who designed them didn't have this particular defendant in mind during the design process.

Now, in cases where there's some weird new form of evidence that's gathered, and the prosecutor says "Hey, crime lab, we really need to know fact X about this evidence", and there's no established protocol or piece of equipment for dealing with it, and somebody at the crime lab calls some scientist and says "How should we do this?", and the scientist says "Well, I think you should do A then B then C -- hey, looks like that works", then the scientist's design of that one-off protocol might very well be testimonial; at the least, it would be a lot more interesting question. But when an ordinary piece of evidence comes in, and Lab Tech X uses Standard Protocol Y to produce Report Z, then it's hard to argue that the author of Standard Protocol Y has given anything resembling "testimony".

That makes sense, thank you.

fnorgby: Not to be an elitist or anything... but who here isn't glad this didn't get greenlighted? I'm finding the whole thread informative (I know, right? on Fark?) and educational.

Man my timing sux. Insert "up to now" where appropriate above.

Megain: i love these threads. criminal law fascinates me

/nothing to contribute

I'm more interested in how the politics on this one will shake out. The mere fact that so many drug cases and abusive DUI laws will not require more effort to prosecute SHOULD force a political shift against frivolous prosecution. If it's expensive to try cases, then only the cases that really need to be prosecuted should end up in court.

Or so goes my thinking on this one anyway.

...er....

and abusive DUI laws will not now require...

bah. need more coffee.

Weaver95: The mere fact that so many drug cases and abusive DUI laws will not require more effort to prosecute SHOULD force a political shift against frivolous prosecution. If it's expensive to try cases, then only the cases that really need to be prosecuted should end up in court.

Or so goes my thinking on this one anyway.

They'll just pull resources and personnel from the Public Defender's office and shift them to the Prosecutor's office :)

Weaver95: ok, why do I not see a problem with this SCOTUS ruling? this all seems like a damn good thing for 'we the people'.

From the prosecutor's side, it can seriously slow down prosecutions in the courtroom and tie up laboratory staff in court when they could be in the lab. I think it's a valid point, but not enough to override the Confrontations Clause issues.

fnorgby: Not to be an elitist or anything... but who here isn't glad this didn't get greenlighted? I'm finding the whole thread informative (I know, right? on Fark?) and educational.

Antonioni Scialfa is an extra-terrestrial.

ju66l3r: ju66l3r: What's next? The secretary in the precinct who typed up your report has to verify that she didn't misspell someone else's name and that she really did mean to type your name into the arrest warrant?

None of you defending this ruling want to touch that one? Surprising.

I think that's just a straw man argument there. By the time we got to warrant writing there should be enough evidence that exists outside of that single document that would lead you to the conclusion that the warrant was accurate.

A warrant also isn't in and of itself evidence. So it just seems tangential to try to refer to it as such. Testing and test results are pointed to as evidence and should be under severe scrutiny.

/ianal
//trying to get motivated to study for the lsat

fnorgby: Can you say someone's constitutional rights are denied if they do have the right to confront the witness but just choose not to?

What's different? The defense could always agree to stipulate that the evidence is acceptable and there's no reason to bring the tech in. I bet a lot of defense attorneys in a lot of cases will do just that.

If there's a reason why this kind of stipulation wouldn't be a perfect substitution for the way things were, then that reason is a reason why this is a good ruling. (IMO, and IANALY)

This is a change in the rules of evidence though... Can the defense allow the prosecution to ignore one of the rules of evidence? Is that legal?

Good decision.

Nabb1: Weaver95: ok, why do I not see a problem with this SCOTUS ruling? this all seems like a damn good thing for 'we the people'.

From the prosecutor's side, it can seriously slow down prosecutions in the courtroom and tie up laboratory staff in court when they could be in the lab. I think it's a valid point, but not enough to override the Confrontations Clause issues.

How would the confrontation clause be overridden if the defendant has the right to call the lab tester to the stand? Making it mandatory to enter the evidence is just silly and a waste of time and money.

Nabb1: Weaver95: ok, why do I not see a problem with this SCOTUS ruling? this all seems like a damn good thing for 'we the people'.

From the prosecutor's side, it can seriously slow down prosecutions in the courtroom and tie up laboratory staff in court when they could be in the lab. I think it's a valid point, but not enough to override the Confrontations Clause issues.

yeah, but I think we've allowed standards to slip when it comes to evidence. Look at the abuses in DUI and anti-drug laws, for example.

As I understand it, the 'core principal' of our legal system has always been 'innocent until proven guilty'. So to my mind, this ruling is merely an extension of that core principal. Making sure that the standard of evidence is beyond reproach can only be a GOOD thing, right?

plus it also means that cops and prosecutors will focus on cases that really ARE all about the bad guy and might stop with trying to force a case based on their political career(s). Or so I hope anyways.

jbuist: SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concur-
ring opinion. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROB-
ERTS, C. J., and BREYER and ALITO, JJ., joined.

Now there's an interesting break down!

It happens in criminal law cases more often than you think. Given the text of the Sixth Amendment, I can't say I'm surprised that Scalia would have decided this way.

The whole liberal/conservative breakdown of the Court is not anywhere near as clear-cut as people think.

Ryan2065: Can the defense allow the prosecution to ignore one of the rules of evidence? Is that legal?

Yes.

I wonder if this ruling will bring some level of sanity back to the ass rape we call 'DUI'....?

kronicfeld: Ryan2065: Can the defense allow the prosecution to ignore one of the rules of evidence? Is that legal?

Yes.

Are you saying that from experience or you just think it should be that way so it must be?

Ryan2065: fnorgby: Can you say someone's constitutional rights are denied if they do have the right to confront the witness but just choose not to?

What's different? The defense could always agree to stipulate that the evidence is acceptable and there's no reason to bring the tech in. I bet a lot of defense attorneys in a lot of cases will do just that.

If there's a reason why this kind of stipulation wouldn't be a perfect substitution for the way things were, then that reason is a reason why this is a good ruling. (IMO, and IANALY)

This is a change in the rules of evidence though... Can the defense allow the prosecution to ignore one of the rules of evidence? Is that legal?

Yes, a defendant can waive some of their rights if they do so voluntarily and intelligently.

Weaver95: I wonder if this ruling will bring some level of sanity back to the ass rape we call 'DUI'....?

What tests are sent out in the DUI cases?

Send in the scientists (new window)!.

"I think the effect of this could be very, very bad for public safety," said Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Raymond F. Morrogh. "If we are not able to use this evidence, which is reliable, but it's excluded because we can't get the technician here, the guilty will go free. It's a real challenge for us to deal with it.

Never mind, I just needed to read further.

good. the DUI laws needed a swift kick in the 'nards.

If they swear on a bible God should show up.

/then we can kill him again

Ryan2065: What tests are sent out in the DUI cases?

This ruling will undoubtedly provide for scrutiny of the software used by breathalyzers.

There's a reason the breathalyzer manufacturer has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid having their software exposed in court.

The "black-box" aspect will be removed.

gorgor: If they swear on a bible God should show up.

/then we can kill him again

god-mode on.

SchlingFocker: Ryan2065: What tests are sent out in the DUI cases?

This ruling will undoubtedly provide for scrutiny of the software used by breathalyzers.

There's a reason the breathalyzer manufacturer has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid having their software exposed in court.

The "black-box" aspect will be removed.

Scratch that. It won't. My bad.

What does this mean for the red-light cameras?

Interesting possible side effect: creation of more lab tech jobs. This could be a win-win situation.

Weaver95: I wonder if this ruling will bring some level of sanity back to the ass rape we call 'DUI'....?

aren't the "scientists" who administer that test called cops?

NuttierThanEver: it also means fewer rapists and serial killers too.

I would disagree, only because rapists and murderers will tend to have their investigations done very much by the book because there's so much pressure for a conviction, where with potheads, you don't have victim's families coming down on you about locking them up, and there's usually very little if any investigation.

SchlingFocker: Ryan2065: What tests are sent out in the DUI cases?

This ruling will undoubtedly provide for scrutiny of the software used by breathalyzers.

There's a reason the breathalyzer manufacturer has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid having their software exposed in court.

The "black-box" aspect will be removed.

That should be very, very interesting indeed. Also - won't the cops have to prove that the officer using the machine in the field is qualified to operate the equipment and analyze the results? From what i've read, not every officer on every police force has been checked out on those machines.

SchlingFocker: This ruling will undoubtedly provide for scrutiny of the software used by breathalyzers.

That needed to happen anyway.

Though I just looked it up, the blood tests to measure the BAC are done in hospitals and sent to the lab. For some reason I thought that was done in the police station with something like the thing that measures sugar in the blood for diabetics.

The fact that the decision broke the way it did, with conservative and liberals on either side, means this might actually be the right decision.

On the other hand, the most important point of this decision has been overlooked - that forensic science, long ignored and marginalized as an egghead oddity, is now as important, if not more so, to secure a conviction as classic criminal investigation. Police departments, the FBI, law enforcement in general, and the people that fund them (that's you and me, people) need to embrace that idea, and start putting funds where they're needed. Era of the nerd, baby.

Ryan2065: kronicfeld: Ryan2065: Can the defense allow the prosecution to ignore one of the rules of evidence? Is that legal?

Yes.

Are you saying that from experience or you just think it should be that way so it must be?

Any objection can be waived. Whether it should is an entirely different matter. Both sides may also enter stipulations as to points of evidence or law over which there is no disagreement.

Driedsponge: What does this mean for the red-light cameras?

I don't know but now I can't get "Roxanne" out of my head.

i think it's appropriate to assert someone established as a professional is present to testify as to the proper interpretation of a set of data. lord knows such things can sometimes be misleading without deep understanding.

yeah, it's gonna slow things down a while and crime labs will see a huge increase in their burden but hey, look at it this way, it's creating jobs! (jobs that are worthwhile, as the quality of our justice benefits us all)

toonz: Weaver95: I wonder if this ruling will bring some level of sanity back to the ass rape we call 'DUI'....?

aren't the "scientists" who administer that test called cops?

Not always, at least according to this article:

In drunken driving cases, Fairfax also faces a problem. In most DWI cases, the county uses breath-test technicians stationed in the jail to perform the blood-alcohol tests rather than the arresting officers so the entire 1,300-officer force does not have to be trained on the machines. But there are only a few dozen technicians in Fairfax processing about 4,000 DWI cases a year. Training Virginia's largest police force on the machines is not feasible financially, spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings said.

iollow: NuttierThanEver: it also means fewer rapists and serial killers too.

I would disagree, only because rapists and murderers will tend to have their investigations done very much by the book because there's so much pressure for a conviction, where with potheads, you don't have victim's families coming down on you about locking them up, and there's usually very little if any investigation.

Wait, what? Are you saying they already had the lab techs come in to the trial and testify in murder and rape cases?

Driedsponge: What does this mean for the red-light cameras?

They'll convert those to administrative fees and since those aren't a criminal matter you don't get due processes.

An Scrumtrulecent original.

Given that there's been cases of incompetent lab work, and worse, actual dishonesty, this doesn't seem inappropriate. The scientific foundation may be trustworthy, but that doesn't mean that the people working at the lab are necessarily perfectly implementing the science.

Driedsponge: What does this mean for the red-light cameras?

Nothing. Red light cameras, I would imagine, fall into the same category as surveillance cameras (at a bank, for example). Presumably the camera has an operator even if the operator isn't present at the time of the recording.

Scalia follows the law, period. He's a great justice.

Weaver95: toonz: Weaver95: I wonder if this ruling will bring some level of sanity back to the ass rape we call 'DUI'....?

aren't the "scientists" who administer that test called cops?

Not always, at least according to this article:

In drunken driving cases, Fairfax also faces a problem. In most DWI cases, the county uses breath-test technicians stationed in the jail to perform the blood-alcohol tests rather than the arresting officers so the entire 1,300-officer force does not have to be trained on the machines. But there are only a few dozen technicians in Fairfax processing about 4,000 DWI cases a year. Training Virginia's largest police force on the machines is not feasible financially, spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings said.

t'anks. To you and Ryan2065, both.
Golly. this thread is informative.

/and yes i could'a googled it meself, but thanks for checking it.

Am I the only one who thinks this provides even more ammunition for laxer drug laws?

If the labs are going to be overwhelmed, then change the laws so they are not being backlogged with drug cases. Of course this only applies to nonviolent.... etc. etc. etc.

Not only will that avoid the delays that are sure to arise from this ruling, but it will have a dramatic effect of decreasing future logs, and will allow the technicians to focus on the serious cases.

Ms. Hammertoe, an E.R. nurse, has to testify every time a case that she performs a rape examination on comes to trial. Why should a CSI lab tech be any different?

happydude45: Scalia follows the law, period. He's afor great justice.

/sorry

FTFA:

In drug cases, more than 1.5 million samples are analyzed by state and local labs each year, resulting in more than 350,000 felony convictions, national statistics show. "Even if only 5 percent of drug cases culminate in trials, the burden on the states is oppressive," a group of state attorneys general wrote in a brief for the case.

Maybe we're trying waaaaaaaaaaay too many drug cases?

ya know if Scalia keeps up this trend of actually supporting the constitution (see Gant v Arizona in addition to this opinion) I might have to start giving him a little more respect...

/law student
//supports the Bill of Rights

Obdicut: kronicfeld: Until you get out of law school, don't presume to talk down to me about the law.

Out of interest, what is he saying that's wrong? Is he wrong to say that rules of evidence are not the same thing as burden of proof? Why does that get such a reaction from you?

I'm very conflicted about this ruling, personally. My fiancee is a tech (though doing cancer research), and she sees it as a huge imposition on lab-workers time. However, I think that the benefit of having huge numbers of drug cases not prosecuted is great-- but then, this is a convoluted way to achieve that result.

Psh, yeah. We all know that Lab Worker's Time > Justice Being Served.

Gameshot911: Am I the only one who thinks this provides even more ammunition for laxer drug laws?

If the labs are going to be overwhelmed, then change the laws so they are not being backlogged with drug cases. Of course this only applies to nonviolent.... etc. etc. etc.

Not only will that avoid the delays that are sure to arise from this ruling, but it will have a dramatic effect of decreasing future logs, and will allow the technicians to focus on the serious cases.

Even if it doesn't force a change in the law, I'd expect that there will be FAR less law enforcement interest in small amounts of cannabis. And if we're lucky, the cops will go after the really dangerous stuff like crack, meth, heroin rather than busting pot heads who just get stoned and fall asleep on a park bench.

Marcus Aurelius: Perhaps prosecutors will now have to focus their efforts on real crimes instead of hauling a bunch of stoners through the justice system then.

precisely!

JohnBigBootay: TFA: the burden on the states is oppressive,

The state can never be oppressed by the freedom of the people. State attorneys general needs to shut up.

Howie Spankowitz: jbuist: SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concur-
ring opinion. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROB-
ERTS, C. J., and BREYER and ALITO, JJ., joined.

Now there's an interesting break down!

Wow...don't know when we'll ever see those alliances on a decision again.

I would bet one billion dollars that we don't.

Wow. I've agreed with Roberts on a number of cases but to be on the side of Scalia and Thomas feels... weird.

Kennedy added, "Guilty defendants will go free, on the most technical grounds, as a direct result of today's decision, adding nothing to the truth-finding process."

I have a problem with a justice calling someone guilty who has not yet been proven guilty.

Philip J. Fry: JohnBigBootay: TFA: the burden on the states is oppressive,

The state can never be oppressed by the freedom of the people. State attorneys general needs to shut up.

I find it scary that the state finds rules on evidence 'oppressive' in the first place!

Ryan2065: Weaver95: I wonder if this ruling will bring some level of sanity back to the ass rape we call 'DUI'....?

What tests are sent out in the DUI cases?

could they call the Manufacturer or coder for the brethalyzers? Some have been shown to have code written by drunk monkies as posted above.

Howie Spankowitz: kronicfeld: sweetmelissa31: I am so confused. Why would Scalia and Thomas support this? I agree with the opinion, but it seems unlike them.

Scalia is a big fan of the Confrontation Clause, if I remember correctly.

What's your take on DamnYankees question regarding the business records exemption, counselor?

The Confrontation Clause is no longer satisfied just because evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception if it is considered testimonial.

Blues_X: This woman is EXACTLY why this is a good ruling.

When The Evidence Lies (new window)

I want every death-penalty advocate to read that article 100 times.

Anything that slows and/or impedes the machinations of the state is a good thing in my book.

NuttierThanEver: benlonghair: NuttierThanEver: Just another example of how the legal system continues to fark it up when dealing with science.

What? This is a great ruling. Instead of juries being told that "this is science, that makes it true," defense attorneys can cross examine the tech who will explain that these tests aren't necessarily perfect.

You can present the data on the sensitivity and specificity of a test and then present data that sheds light on the risks of false positives of any tests without having to demand that the tech who put the test in a machine 1000 miles away be present to question directly. You want to cross examine the tech that collected the samples? Fine, that makes sense.
But demanding to have a lab tech be present just explain that it was he that but chemical A into beaker B and then hit the switch on the PCR machine is just assinine.

And the infallible lab tech follows proceedure in every case perfectly? The lab tech is never influenced by an investigator, samples are never mishandled, dropped on the floor, thawed too quickly, split due to minimal amounts, tainted with chemicals etc... sure the lab tech only pours 1 chemical into 1 beaker and only stirs it one time.

How much do you know about lab test processes?

The one I'm actually surprised by is Kennedy - he's usually pretty libertarian.

The_one_with_that_guy: Psh, yeah. We all know that Lab Worker's Time > Justice Being Served.

Begging the question is a silly way to argue.

Moonk: could they call the Manufacturer or coder for the brethalyzers? Some have been shown to have code written by drunk monkies as posted above.

I misspoke. This ruling applied only to evidence generated specifically for a certain defendant. Software written for a machine that's only used to generate evidence in general isn't covered by this ruling.

RE: Evidence and business records.

1. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to State court proceedings unless the state has adopted them, or their equivelants. This ruling only affects States, as calling lab techs is already required in federal prosecutions.

2. If records are created specifically for trial, then they do not fall within the "business records" exception. The reasons should be obvious. Business records are generally assumed to be accurate as they are relied upon to conduct the business. If they were inaccurate, then the business would be unable to function. If records are created specifically for the purpose of litigation, then they are likely to say what the litigant wants them to say and are thus less-reliable on their face.

3. Lab reports would probably not be business records because the lab does not rely on them in conducting their business in the same way that a credit card company relies on customer billing records. Lab reports are a product of the lab, not a necessary component of the day-to-day operations.

Weaver95: rather than busting pot heads who just get stoned and fall asleep on a park bench.

I never knew that pot smokers did that.

Remember the episode where Captain Kirk was being court martialled? And his lawyer gave that great speech about facing your accuser?

Havin' read the comments above, I have to say I'm thrilled by the ruling.

I think it was a couple of quotes from the article that got me:

Even if only 5 percent of drug cases culminate in trials, the burden on the states is oppressive

and

There's a triage going on in court cases. Some marijuana cases don't get tested, and we end up throwing them out.

Folks, we have the largest number of people incarcerated in the world. Most of the non-violent offenders shouldn't even be in there. Removing someone's freedom should be a last resort, and should be as hard as possible for the state to do, keeping with the whole "presumption of innocence" deal. Holding the state to a higher standard isn't a bad thing. If this means a few potheads go home to the couch and their Doritos rather than a facility where they're trained in racism, violence, and oppression, I'll count that as a good thing.

Marcus Aurelius: Let's hope this puts a nail into the coffin of red light and speed cameras at the same time.

/i call the speed camera as my next witness

I didn't know red light cameras were terminal or laying in a coffin, it seems more like they are in full pod mode and springing up as often as an american falls asleep.

However I do hope that this will be a segue to 1000's of challenges to them.

Moonk: Ryan2065: Weaver95: I wonder if this ruling will bring some level of sanity back to the ass rape we call 'DUI'....?

What tests are sent out in the DUI cases?

could they call the Manufacturer or coder for the brethalyzers? Some have been shown to have code written by drunk monkies as posted above.

I honestly don't know. But there has been a LOT of resistance from the manufacturers of those machines to make their source code available for review. And the prosecutors have also been generally reluctant to give that code to defendants. How much effect this ruling will have on that fight I cannot say. Might not even be a related issue.

That said, if a case involving releasing breathalyzer source code ever gets to SCOTUS, the court might very well rule against the manufacturer. This ruling seems to lean that way, at least to me. But i'm just a programmer, not a lawyer so take that for what you will.

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: Scalia's decision makes no sense to me. How is this not a business records exemption?

Even if it were a "business record," which I think is highly dubious, business records aren't magically admissible just because you hold up a document and say "judge, this is a business record." The "record" still has to be authenticated, and the court still has to hear evidence of the things that qualify the document as a business record. Those vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally you need to show - again, through evidence, not mere representations of counsel - that the record was kept in the regular course of business, and that it was in the regular course of business to make that record.

I don't know where you are from, but techs in a crime lab are required to not only document the test results, but are ALSO required to document the proceedures they used to conduct the tests. All this documentation is presented to the court along with the test results, fulfilling the "authentication" requirement.

What's next? Requiring the doctors and nurses that attended your birth to testify in court to verify your age?

SherKhan: sweetmelissa31:

Why would Scalia and Thomas support this?

Scalia to benefit his mob connections and Thomas, well, because that could be anyone's hair on that can.

I like you.

just a thought on the overwhelming number of posters who think too many "non-violent" drug cases are prosecuted, independent of my views on the decision...

i clerk in a prosecutors' office. i never thought i would advocate prosecuting "non-violent" drug offenses, but that belief has changed rapidly.

people seem to think too many drug cases are being prosecuted, and i agree to some extent. but just because its "non-violent" doesnt make it victimless. is it a good think when a suspect is not prosecuted for selling crack cocaine to an undercover cop? its "non-violent," but what is the impact of this activity on entire neighborhoods and cities? the unexagerated answer is it destroys them.

oblig.

SchlingFocker: Moonk: could they call the Manufacturer or coder for the brethalyzers? Some have been shown to have code written by drunk monkies as posted above.

I misspoke. This ruling applied only to evidence generated specifically for a certain defendant. Software written for a machine that's only used to generate evidence in general isn't covered by this ruling.

what if the machine prints out paper for each test, could the code then be looked at as the code generates the paper result which is defendant specific?

SchlingFocker: ju66l3r: This is the dumbest thing ever. Dragging some poor schlub into court because he just happened to handle the sample...the same way he handles dozens of samples a day.

Perhaps, if we had actually had some public scrutiny and cross-examination of the lab guys in the courtroom, Harris County crime lab wouldn't have been able to go on falsifying and fabricating evidence for so long.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people would not be in jail.

A-farking-men. The bullshiat shenanigans that occurred in the Harris Co. crime lab were a direct result of zero courtroom examination or scrutiny of the crime lab's methods and standards. People imagined that shiat was CSI: Miami and convicted on no more evidence than the lab presented. This new ruling should pretty effectively end that potential for abuse.

Gameshot911: Am I the only one who thinks this provides even more ammunition for laxer drug laws?

If the labs are going to be overwhelmed, then change the laws so they are not being backlogged with drug cases. Of course this only applies to nonviolent.... etc. etc. etc.

Not only will that avoid the delays that are sure to arise from this ruling, but it will have a dramatic effect of decreasing future logs, and will allow the technicians to focus on the serious cases.

You win 5 internets. Don't get cocky.

Loreweaver: I don't know where you are from, but techs in a crime lab are required to not only document the test results, but are ALSO required to document the proceedures they used to conduct the tests. All this documentation is presented to the court along with the test results, fulfilling the "authentication" requirement.

The techs in the Houston Crime Lab did this. However, if they had been called to the stand, they would not have been able to describe the process from start to finish. They didn't know how to do what they said they did.

This decision can only benefit the cause of justice in this country, not hinder it like that jackass state's attorney said. It will force a lab tech to justify their results, and make them much more of an impartial observer in the process, rather than just an arm of the prosecution.

My buddy is a tech in a crime lab in PA, and has told me that his bosses told him that their job was to help the prosecution get convictions. So, that means that you interpret the tests so that they say what you need them to say sometimes. especially if you know all that was going to happen was that your report would be entered into evidence, and you wouldn't really have to go on the stand, and explain how you got the results. Now that they do, maybe they won't be so quick to make the call that the evidence says someone is guilty, and be more willing to admit that the results of the tests can be read a couple of ways.

Loreweaver: kronicfeld: DamnYankees: Scalia's decision makes no sense to me. How is this not a business records exemption?

Even if it were a "business record," which I think is highly dubious, business records aren't magically admissible just because you hold up a document and say "judge, this is a business record." The "record" still has to be authenticated, and the court still has to hear evidence of the things that qualify the document as a business record. Those vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally you need to show - again, through evidence, not mere representations of counsel - that the record was kept in the regular course of business, and that it was in the regular course of business to make that record.

I don't know where you are from, but techs in a crime lab are required to not only document the test results, but are ALSO required to document the proceedures they used to conduct the tests. All this documentation is presented to the court along with the test results, fulfilling the "authentication" requirement.

What's next? Requiring the doctors and nurses that attended your birth to testify in court to verify your age?

If there was some how some case somewhere that hinged on proving that the birth happened or did not happen. Yes, bring in the doctor to confirm the birth.

Try a closer example next time.

ew47: A-farking-men. The bullshiat shenanigans that occurred in the Harris Co. crime lab were a direct result of zero courtroom examination or scrutiny of the crime lab's methods and standards. People imagined that shiat was CSI: Miami and convicted on no more evidence than the lab presented. This new ruling should pretty effectively end that potential for abuse.

it'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

So..... we can't use made up findings and junk science in court anymore?

Dammit.

hot like burn marks from time traveling 88mph

Marcus Aurelius: NuttierThanEver

it also means fewer rapists and serial killers too

Perhaps prosecutors will now have to focus their efforts on real crimes instead of hauling a bunch of stoners through the justice system then.

There's a thought.

Of course, under Bush II it was official policy to go after the potheads. Even for him that was farking stupid.

Jha: So..... we can't use made up findings and junk science in court anymore?

Dammit.

no, you can still do that. But now you have to get up and do it under oath, and then be subject to cross-examination.

that tends to complicate things a bit.

CygnusDarius: gorgor: If they swear on a bible God should show up.

/then we can kill him again

god-mode on.

IDDQD

The war on science continues!

You know what this means? The government will need to hire a ton of new lab analyst because at any time a handful of them pay have to be in court to testify.
Yummy. (Not a lab analyst)

devildog123: This decision can only benefit the cause of justice in this country, not hinder it like that jackass state's attorney said. It will force a lab tech to justify their results, and make them much more of an impartial observer in the process, rather than just an arm of the prosecution.

My buddy is a tech in a crime lab in PA, and has told me that his bosses told him that their job was to help the prosecution get convictions. So, that means that you interpret the tests so that they say what you need them to say sometimes. especially if you know all that was going to happen was that your report would be entered into evidence, and you wouldn't really have to go on the stand, and explain how you got the results. Now that they do, maybe they won't be so quick to make the call that the evidence says someone is guilty, and be more willing to admit that the results of the tests can be read a couple of ways.


That is terrifying.

MrBERZERKER: just a thought on the overwhelming number of posters who think too many "non-violent" drug cases are prosecuted, independent of my views on the decision...

i clerk in a prosecutors' office. i never thought i would advocate prosecuting "non-violent" drug offenses, but that belief has changed rapidly.

people seem to think too many drug cases are being prosecuted, and i agree to some extent. but just because its "non-violent" doesnt make it victimless. is it a good think when a suspect is not prosecuted for selling crack cocaine to an undercover cop? its "non-violent," but what is the impact of this activity on entire neighborhoods and cities? the unexagerated answer is it destroys them.

I think when people speak of "non violent drug use" they are referring to Mary Jane. crack can kill ya right off the bat, as can heroin. I dont need to see some dumb kid growing 5 plants in his basement for his own use and to share with friends go to jail for whatever time(i have no idea what the charges and penalties associated with them are).

Plus i think it's patriotic when people grow and sell their own weed, making sure it doenst fund foreign interests :-)

dragyne: That is terrifying.

welcome to Pennsylvania.

You want science? OK, let's get 'em in there.



Now THESE are the guys that should be teaching high school science.


/and for the obligatory "hot for teacher".....

ju66l3r: This is the dumbest thing ever. Dragging some poor schlub into court because he just happened to handle the sample...the same way he handles dozens of samples a day. Then, what happens if some screwed up jury buys the "reasonable doubt" in the 99.9% accurate test? Every one of that tech's cases suddenly gets a new appeal? Gimme a break. Meanwhile, that tech isn't in the lab dealing with the ALREADY huge backlog of samples (because these days if you DON'T sample something, then it's an automatic win for the defense in the era of CSI juries)...so every other case is completely fuxored.

Yes, it'd be great if we could line up absolutely everyone involved in your conviction and you could ask each one of them "did you do it right this time?" before finally going to jail, but it's just not feasible.
getting cleared because there was reasonable doubt.
What's next? The secretary in the precinct who typed up your report has to verify that she didn't misspell someone else's name and that she really did mean to type your name into the arrest warrant?

FTF all the innocent people convicted without facing ALL their accusers. That is, after all, what lab tech is: One of the accusers.

AWESOME

I'm actually surprised that Scalia would make it harder to railroad someone in court.

Also, just because I feel like it...SUCK IT, MADD!

It has been awhile since i was in state criminal court, but this is what I remember.

Generally, the defendant would agree to allow the affidavit of the lab tech in, saying that the lab tech tested sample X, and the results were that sample X was (insert drug). If the defendant pled out, nothing else was really required.

Defendants fighting (demanding trial) could call the lab tech to court, but they had to pay for it, much like calling an independent expert. I saw this in a couple high level felony cases (murders, rapes), but never for drugs.

From a quick reading, it appears that now any defendant can demand the state pay for the tech to come and testify; that is the major difference. However, if a defendant does that, I know what will happen. The lab tech will come, testify, be crossed, and the defendant will still be found guilty. Then, when he is sentenced, he will receive a couple extra years. Much like the defendant who demands a jury trial over a bench trial; if you waste the state's resources, you will pay.

I prefer the old way, the state's evidence can be done by affidavit, but the state has to make the lab tech available for the defendant to call and pay for. Requiring the state to make the tech available just wastes time and will add on to sentences.

ju66l3r: Yes, it'd be great if we could line up absolutely everyone involved in your conviction and you could ask each one of them "did you do it right this time?" before finally going to jail, but it's just not feasible.


Don't give a shiat if it's not feasible. It's their right as the accused.

Want shiat to move faster? Hire more staff or stop arresting people for petty shiat.

SchlingFocker: This ruling will undoubtedly provide for scrutiny of the software used by breathalyzers.

There's a reason the breathalyzer manufacturer has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid having their software exposed in court.

It's already been done. The code is crap: bad math, improper exception handling...

Marcus Aurelius: Let's hope this puts a nail into the coffin of red light and speed cameras at the same time.

/i call the speed camera as my next witness

This.
This.
This.
This.
This.
This.

Weaver95: dragyne: That is terrifying.

welcome to Pennsylvania.

Yeah, I have yet to have any legal trouble here and I never intend to but that kind of shiat is just ridiculous.

dragyne: devildog123: This decision can only benefit the cause of justice in this country, not hinder it like that jackass state's attorney said. It will force a lab tech to justify their results, and make them much more of an impartial observer in the process, rather than just an arm of the prosecution.

My buddy is a tech in a crime lab in PA, and has told me that his bosses told him that their job was to help the prosecution get convictions. So, that means that you interpret the tests so that they say what you need them to say sometimes. especially if you know all that was going to happen was that your report would be entered into evidence, and you wouldn't really have to go on the stand, and explain how you got the results. Now that they do, maybe they won't be so quick to make the call that the evidence says someone is guilty, and be more willing to admit that the results of the tests can be read a couple of ways.


That is terrifying.

THIS, and disgusting too. Which county Devildog? i live in Centre and want to know where i should stay the fark away.

/pic of bears repeating plz

dragyne: Weaver95: dragyne: That is terrifying.

welcome to Pennsylvania.

Yeah, I have yet to have any legal trouble here and I never intend to but that kind of shiat is just ridiculous.

I just got a $115 ticket over a light bulb being out over my license plate.

Oh yes. i'm fighting it.

sseye:
Of course, under Bush II it was official policy to go after the potheads. Even for him that was farking stupid.

It's funny for a man whose conversations with Jesus led him to protect fetuses from stem cell research (which, for the most part didn't even need to use fetal tissue), while going all "pro-lifey" by dropping ordnance all over the wrong desert country, to prosecute those who sought delusion as cheap recreation due to their "destructive patterns" (like going all fatwa on a bag of Doritos, I guess).

kronicfeld: It's a "platitude" for me to point out that we can and should insist on the state meeting its burden of proof when it attempts to take away people's liberty?

Nope. It's a good legal argument.

On the other hand, since it means such techs will now have to spend some fraction of their time testifying. (And worse, traveling to testify.) The time of skilled technicians is a scarce resource. This therefore increases the social costs for using such testing, and the cost of attempting to punish those actually guilty. Absent restraint by lawyers in doing so, these costs can become non-trivial and potentially destabilizingly.

Which is not argument from a legal context, but an observation from a sociological one.

So, what restraints (legal and/or social) are there against lawyers simply calling witnesses for the harassment value? (Besides, of course, the restraint via Shakespearean hazard.)

MrBERZERKER: just a thought on the overwhelming number of posters who think too many "non-violent" drug cases are prosecuted, independent of my views on the decision...

i clerk in a prosecutors' office. i never thought i would advocate prosecuting "non-violent" drug offenses, but that belief has changed rapidly.

people seem to think too many drug cases are being prosecuted, and i agree to some extent. but just because its "non-violent" doesnt make it victimless. is it a good think when a suspect is not prosecuted for selling crack cocaine to an undercover cop? its "non-violent," but what is the impact of this activity on entire neighborhoods and cities? the unexagerated answer is it destroys them.

Really though, aren't the neighborhoods already destroyed before the Crack in most cases? Rather than diverting resources to fix these broken neighborhoods, the municipalities divert resources to the Police and the "War On Drugs," and then they just imprison people who are trying to make a buck...

toonz: sseye:
Of course, under Bush II it was official policy to go after the potheads. Even for him that was farking stupid.

It's funny for a man whose conversations with Jesus led him to protect fetuses from stem cell research (which, for the most part didn't even need to use fetal tissue), while going all "pro-lifey" by dropping ordnance all over the wrong desert country, to prosecute those who sought delusion as cheap recreation due to their "destructive patterns" (like going all fatwa on a bag of Doritos, I guess).

Bush was just being typically authoritarian. if it makes you feel good, it MUST be illegal. Or so goes the authoritarian mind set anyway.

Marcus Aurelius: Let's hope this puts a nail into the coffin of red light and speed cameras at the same time.

/i call the speed camera as my next witness


Speaking of which, I read in the Chicago Tribune that a speed camera in Schaumburg IL was removed due to public outrage over the $1 million in tickets it issued.

A camera was removed. Amazing.

Weaver95: dragyne: Weaver95: dragyne: That is terrifying.

welcome to Pennsylvania.

Yeah, I have yet to have any legal trouble here and I never intend to but that kind of shiat is just ridiculous.

I just got a $115 ticket over a light bulb being out over my license plate.

Oh yes. i'm fighting it.

Here's to hoping your piggy gets a donut craving on your court date.

/was he a statey?
//or a local sitting on 322?

Weaver95: dragyne: That is terrifying.

welcome to Pennsylvania Valkenvania.

/obscure?

patrick767: Thomas supported it because Scalia did.

It's funny because it's true.

/me dances for joy!

Boofarkinhoo, get more scientists on the payroll. DUI laws are so subjective anyway, I guess the state prosecutors and police will have to stop wasting resources on stupid shiat and do some real work.

Moonk:

THIS, and disgusting too. Which county Devildog? i live in Centre and want to know where i should stay the fark away.

/pic of bears repeating plz


Can't exactly remember which county he works for, but he lives near KoP if that helps you any.

NuttierThanEver: Just another example of how the legal system continues to fark it up when dealing with science.

There is no such thing as "science" per se. Science is a process/method. To take a thing as fact simply because someone labeled it as "science" is insane and definitely not scientific.

Yes, attorneys from both sides should be able to question how evidence was processed and how reliable the determinations made from that evidence actually are.

improvius: Interesting possible side effect: creation of more lab tech jobs. This could be a win-win situation.

Yeah, my wife is about to graduate from school.

NuttierThanEver: Just another example of how the legal system continues to fark it up when dealing with science.

How so?

I want to be able to question the guy who did the test. Did he do it right? Is he trained on that instrument? Is he certified? Can he list the chemical known to interfere with the test? How did he account for them?

Behold the 6th amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Despite Dubya's claims to the contrary, it's not just a piece of paper! Don't like it, amend the constitution.

Moonk: /was he a statey?
//or a local sitting on 322?

local cop, out in lingelstown.

he wanted to know what I was doing driving around after midnight.

agentyx: Really though, aren't the neighborhoods already destroyed before the Crack in most cases? Rather than diverting resources to fix these broken neighborhoods, the municipalities divert resources to the Police and the "War On Drugs," and then they just imprison people who are trying to make a buck...

no, they arent. look at the crack epidemic of the 80s. look at what meth is doing to the rural parts of the country. it enters middle class neighborhoods and decimates them. the fact that someone is tyring to "make a buck" doesnt make it ok.

we arent talking about weed here. we prosecute relatively few MJ cases, unless of course crack is being sold too. i honestly think people just dont realize how bad it is...

mediaho: Weaver95: dragyne: That is terrifying.

welcome to Pennsylvania Valkenvania.

/obscure?

i prefer Pennsyltucky


/enjoy the ride on Mr. Bonestripper!
//nothing is ever obscure on Fark :-)

Dissent: "It is remarkable that the Court so confidently disregards a century of jurisprudence. We learn now that we have misinterpreted the Confrontation Clause - hardly an arcane or seldom-used provision of the Constitution - for the first 218 years of its existence."

Standards change as time marches on and society progresses, bringing about new technological and scientific methods as well as growing public comprehension of those methods. In short, it makes more sense to present the finders of damning scientific data for cross-examination today than it did fifty years ago.

Also: 218 years? Go EABOD... scientific evidence is a purely modern invention. Trials prior to the early twentieth century, such as they were, relied almost exclusively on "witness" testimony -- and the term was used very, very loosely.

MrBERZERKER: i clerk in a prosecutors' office. i never thought i would advocate prosecuting "non-violent" drug offenses, but that belief has changed rapidly.

people seem to think too many drug cases are being prosecuted, and i agree to some extent. but just because its "non-violent" doesnt make it victimless. is it a good think when a suspect is not prosecuted for selling crack cocaine to an undercover cop? its "non-violent," but what is the impact of this activity on entire neighborhoods and cities? the unexagerated answer is it destroys them.


Incarceration destroys families and social structures. Sending folks to prison handicaps any chance they have at getting an education and real work, destroys familial bonds that undermine the development of children, and returns people to society who have now had the lovely experience of living in a detention facility (years behind everyone else with no real skills and a host of mental issues).

Keep prison for folks who have a tendency to hurt other people and treat drug addicts as we do alcoholics, deserving of treatment and assistance. That way we'll actually work to solve the problem without creating a massive prison population that cripples large swathes of our society.

I'm good with this.

If the state (prosecution or defense) wants to use lab tests for evidence, they should have to show an assured chain of custody of the sample and documented testing. If you want to use science, then science has a procedure: This sample collected from this place by this person using this procedure, verified by video log Q and GPS and time log R, was transported to the lab in a tamper proof contained with serial number Y (which has been checked out by investigator R before going out to the crime scene) where it was verified as unbroken by Clerk T, opened in the presence of Clerk S then analyzed by three separate technicians Alice, Bob and Charlie using ISO 9001 certified procedure such-and-such and documented in video logs A, B and C, and all three produced the following Result. This result can only be produced by the Defendant perpetrating offense Crime against the Victim.

The process must have built in procedures to detect variances from procedure, assurance of the integrity of the evidence, error detection and correction, and a truthful and realistic expectation of what the test actually says. A sloppy procedure allows for sample mix-ups, erroneous lab results, and evidence falsification, which cannot be tolerated be tolerated in a justice system based on rule of law and evidence.

SchlingFocker: SchlingFocker: Ryan2065: What tests are sent out in the DUI cases?

This ruling will undoubtedly provide for scrutiny of the software used by breathalyzers.

There's a reason the breathalyzer manufacturer has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid having their software exposed in court.

The "black-box" aspect will be removed.

Scratch that. It won't. My bad.


It won't because it's already^ been^ done^.

Pops in chronological order for ya.
=Smidge=

I was under the impression that Lab techs were only allowed to submit reports only at the prelim but would be required to testify at the trial.

This sounds like a terrible idea.

Oh, I used the wrong analogy.

Thanks to this ruling, the nurse that administered the rape kit to the victim will now be required to testify, so the defense can accuse her of tainting the evidence. The tech that processed the kit will be required to testify, so the defense can accuse them of tainting the evidence. The receptionist that signed-in the patient will be required to testify, so the defense can accuse him/her of lying about the victim arriving at the hospital...

And if even one of these people don't/can't testify, the case is automatically dismissed. Because everyone knows that these random doctors, nurses, techs, and hospital receptionists all have a grudge against the defendent...

Is that why the scientists had Al Gore teach us climate science?

Out of all Scalia's harebrained and wacko decisions over the years, this one... this one I can agree with. Must have hit his head on the bathroom sink or something that day.

kronicfeld: NuttierThanEver: it also means fewer rapists and serial killers too.

No, it means a re-allocation of resources to focus on rapists and serial killers.

There is no money arresting rapists and serial killers. (Ignoring the fact that serial killers and actual predatory rapists are incredibly rare as far as crimes are concerned.)

They'll be re-allocating resources to catching drug offenders and drunks sleeping in the back seat of their cars after bars close. Much more $afety to be generated.

MrBERZERKER: just a thought on the overwhelming number of posters who think too many "non-violent" drug cases are prosecuted, independent of my views on the decision...

i clerk in a prosecutors' office. i never thought i would advocate prosecuting "non-violent" drug offenses, but that belief has changed rapidly.

people seem to think too many drug cases are being prosecuted, and i agree to some extent. but just because its "non-violent" doesnt make it victimless. is it a good think when a suspect is not prosecuted for selling crack cocaine to an undercover cop? its "non-violent," but what is the impact of this activity on entire neighborhoods and cities? the unexagerated answer is it destroys them.


Which is why clear thinking people distinguish between drugs with serious deleterious effects on communities and individuals, and drugs that have less serious deleterious effects. A rational approach balances the liberty interest of individuals in self-determination against the damaging effects of the drugs. Those drugs whose damaging effects, when legalized and properly regulated, exceed the value of individuals' liberty interests in self-determination are properly prohibited. Those drugs whose damaging effects, when legalized and properly regulated, are less than the value of individuals' liberty interests in self-determination should be permitted.

It's not an exact science, granted. You have to make something of a subjective determination as to the value of the liberty interest in self-determination. Then you have to decide what effects are deleterious, and how bad those effects have to be before they outweigh the liberty interest in self-determination. But the idea is to give a more nuanced framework than "drugs ought to be legal," or "drugs ought to be banned."

Applying this framework to, for example, crack, one would most likely conclude that crack is properly banned. The drug is just too addictive, too expensive, and too damaging to the health of users to be sold under any circumstances. It was specifically designed to be so addictive that users would have almost no hope of escaping its clutches even after one or two uses. Because crack addicts are willing to do virtually anything to obtain a crack fix, it is well known and well documented that crack destroys communities where it becomes commonplace. For these reasons, the deleterious effects of crack cocaine exceed the liberty interest in self-determination, and crack is properly prohibited.

Marijuana, by contrast, is barely psychologically addictive, and not physically addictive at all. Its harmful physical effects are less serious than those of tobacco or alcohol, both of which drugs are permitted. There is little to no evidence that marijuana users will engage in serious criminal activity to obtain marijuana highs. Marijuana users, when high, pose less danger to the public than people who are intoxicated by alcohol. For these reasons, the liberty interest in self-determination outweighs the deleterious effects of marijuana, and marijuana should be permitted.

Well, lab work just got massively slower and more expensive, prepare for a large increase in traffic citations issued to pay for that shiat.

On the other hand, being called to testify in court as a professional witness is like a vacation for us academics, maybe the lab guys will enjoy it, too.

//Chain of custody is gonna be real damn important to keep track of, too, even moreso than it already is.

//Also, Mythbusters are not scientists. There's a difference between being a teacher (which they're quite good at) and being a practicing professional in the field you're teaching. They do demos, not experiments. Still awesome, but nonetheless.

wmoonfox: Dissent: "It is remarkable that the Court so confidently disregards a century of jurisprudence. We learn now that we have misinterpreted the Confrontation Clause - hardly an arcane or seldom-used provision of the Constitution - for the first 218 years of its existence."

Standards change as time marches on and society progresses, bringing about new technological and scientific methods as well as growing public comprehension of those methods. In short, it makes more sense to present the finders of damning scientific data for cross-examination today than it did fifty years ago.

Also: 218 years? Go EABOD... scientific evidence is a purely modern invention. Trials prior to the early twentieth century, such as they were, relied almost exclusively on "witness" testimony -- and the term was used very, very loosely.


It took us roughly 90 years to eliminate slavery from the Constitution; a much more serious issue than a reinterpretation of the confrontation clause.

SchlingFocker: ju66l3r: This is the dumbest thing ever. Dragging some poor schlub into court because he just happened to handle the sample...the same way he handles dozens of samples a day.

Perhaps, if we had actually had some public scrutiny and cross-examination of the lab guys in the courtroom, Harris County crime lab wouldn't have been able to go on falsifying and fabricating evidence for so long.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people would not be in jail.

This, this, and of course, THIS!

If any of you think this decision is a bad thing, look up the Harris County Crime Lab, here in Houston, Texas. They've sent plenty of innocent people to jail on bogus labwork, including a few on death row. If your life is on the line, whether you are facing the needle or life behind bars, you want to be able to confront a lab report that says you did it.

For further proof, I refer you to the Duke Lacrosse case.

NuttierThanEver: You can present the data on the sensitivity and specificity of a test and then present data that sheds light on the risks of false positives of any tests without having to demand that the tech who put the test in a machine 1000 miles away be present to question directly. You want to cross examine the tech that collected the samples? Fine, that makes sense.
But demanding to have a lab tech be present just explain that it was he that but chemical A into beaker B and then hit the switch on the PCR machine is just assinine.

No, it's not.

Is he trained on that equipment? How many times has he done the test? When was it last calibrated/tested? How did he rule out known contaminants?

I work with laboratory instruments and, trust me when I tell you this, the results CAN vary based on who ran the test. Mistakes happens. Warning signs of a bad run can be missed. etc.

For critical tests, it is not uncommon in some of our labs to have 2 (or more) different people run the same test on 2 different instruments.

I consider collecting data that could result in a human being locked in a cage for years a critical test.

The case was decided on June 25. It took the WaPo three weeks to prepare that story?

Ryan2065: fnorgby: NO it goddamn doesn't. Don't be naive. It means that prosecutors will have to prioritize when and where they use the scientific evidence. Murderers and rapists I'm betting are going to be high on that list.

Right, because having a lab tech take a whole day to travel and testify in one case isn't going to slow down the process at all.

Is there anything that says the tech has to testify in-person? Given the video teleconferencing technologies today, couldn't a Lab tech testify from their lab? They can still be 'confronted' for all realistic purposes.

NuttierThanEver: it also means fewer rapists and serial killers too.

Then maybe, just maybe, they should PRIORITIZE their use of labs and resources to focus on those things, instead of spending money and resources on locking up every teenager who gets caught with a joint (before he becomes president).

Jim_Callahan: Well, lab work just got massively slower and more expensive, prepare for a large increase in traffic citations issued to pay for that shiat.

On the other hand, being called to testify in court as a professional witness is like a vacation for us academics, maybe the lab guys will enjoy it, too.

//Chain of custody is gonna be real damn important to keep track of, too, even moreso than it already is.

//Also, Mythbusters are not scientists. There's a difference between being a teacher (which they're quite good at) and being a practicing professional in the field you're teaching. They do demos, not experiments. Still awesome, but nonetheless.

Are you going to the gym in 26 minutes?

Gosh, what's next? Does this mean Christians will have to be present in churches instead of the current populations of deviants, bigots, trannies, dweebs, motorheads, geeks, sluts, sportos, and wastoids?

/It was just on AMC so I had to quote it.

Smidge204: It won't because it's already^ been^ done^.

Pops in chronological order for ya.

Yeah, as a programmer, I followed that one pretty closely.

I have no problem with this. If this code is used to convict people of felonies, it should be held to clean-room-style standards, and be flawless. If it's not good enough, pay somebody to do it better.

I seem to recall that when it was analyzed, it was found to do very strange things with rolling averages that could easily mislead somebody - and even provide wrong results.

This ruling really is the same exact thing. Procedures need to be transparent and subject to scrutiny. If your procedures are fine, your staff is trained and certified, and all laws regarding the chain of evidence were followed, it's going to be even more of a slam-dunk for a prosecution. But if not... you'll get burned for being sloppy.

Which is exactly how it should be.

NOW, if they would only hold those doing the tests responsible for their screw ups and make it a crime, as well..... then there could be a better justice system.

Weaver95: Moonk: /was he a statey?
//or a local sitting on 322?

local cop, out in lingelstown.

he wanted to know what I was doing driving around after midnight.

none of his GD business, IMHO

Asgate: Ryan2065: fnorgby: NO it goddamn doesn't. Don't be naive. It means that prosecutors will have to prioritize when and where they use the scientific evidence. Murderers and rapists I'm betting are going to be high on that list.

Right, because having a lab tech take a whole day to travel and testify in one case isn't going to slow down the process at all.

Is there anything that says the tech has to testify in-person? Given the video teleconferencing technologies today, couldn't a Lab tech testify from their lab? They can still be 'confronted' for all realistic purposes.

Or even better, they can use that hologram thing that CNN used on election night.

Marcus Aurelius: Let's hope this puts a nail into the coffin of red light and speed cameras at the same time.

/i call the speed camera as my next witness

This is always brought up in discussions like this. Which is sort of unfortunate, because it's always wrong.

A speed camera is not a witness, any more than the speed limit sign on the highway is a witness, or any more than the radar gun in a patrol car is a witness. A speed camera is a piece of machinery. It is a tool. It has no independent intentions. It does not give testimony. You cannot cross-examine it.

The picture produced by a speed camera is a piece of evidence. You cannot cross-examine the picture either.

If you believe that the speed camera is inaccurate, then there are any number of ways you can present that argument in court. But cross-examining a piece of machinery is not one of those ways.

Loreweaver: Oh, I used the wrong analogy.

Thanks to this ruling, the nurse that administered the rape kit to the victim will now be required to testify, so the defense can accuse her of tainting the evidence. The tech that processed the kit will be required to testify, so the defense can accuse them of tainting the evidence.

And if even one of these people don't/can't testify, the case is automatically dismissed. Because everyone knows that these random doctors, nurses, techs, and hospital receptionists all have a grudge against the defendent...

It's also wrong that we require the victim to testify, and be cross-examined. We should dispense with that requirement too. When a woman accuses a man of rape, she should be BELIEVED.

Jim_Callahan:

//Also, Mythbusters are not scientists. There's a difference between being a teacher (which they're quite good at) and being a practicing professional in the field you're teaching. They do demos, not experiments. Still awesome, but nonetheless.

All Mythbusters are is lucky. Bullet proof blast shield my ass. They're lucky they weren't shredded by polycarbonate shrapnel.

Idiots. The best mishap was when the makeup girl got burned and nearly lost an eye to an exploding jaw breaker. What? Duh? What?

Blues_X: This woman is EXACTLY why this is a good ruling.

When The Evidence Lies (new window)

I read the article, interesting, but this ruling doesn't change anything. Joyce Gilchrist testified at the trials, lab data wasn't just reported. The ruling would not have changed this.

devildog123: Moonk:

THIS, and disgusting too. Which county Devildog? i live in Centre and want to know where i should stay the fark away.

/pic of bears repeating plz


Can't exactly remember which county he works for, but he lives near KoP if that helps you any.

cool - that's out on Philly's side of the state and i never go there. State college and pittsburgh only. Hey would ya look at that! 22 is under construction again!!


Weaver95: Moonk: /was he a statey?
//or a local sitting on 322?

local cop, out in lingelstown.

he wanted to know what I was doing driving around after midnight.

I HATE that! they dont have the right to ask it, you don't have to answer it but damn ya if ya don't they will rake ya over the coals.

Cop "Where ya headin' son?"
Me "May i ask what i was stoped for, Officer?"
C "where ya heading at 4 am?"
Me "is a light out sir? i thought i just checked them"
etc

Thankfully the local cops are fairly decent here, especially if your no longer 18-22

I do not envy their jobs on a weekend in State College.

most importan things i was taught, be polite, don't answer questions of inten and such - only yes, here is my license and registration. If they ask ya to step out, if you exit through the door they have the right to search the car as the interior is now in plain view, exit through the sunroof or window *they'll prolly take ya in on suspicion, but they wont have a leg to stand on) And, the 2 holy question/statements "Am i being arested?" "i would like to speak with my lawyer."

CygnusDarius: gorgor: If they swear on a bible God should show up.

/then we can kill him again

god-mode on.

DOWN UP DOWN LEFT RIGHT DOWN UP A B START

Ryan2065: Right, because having a lab tech take a whole day to travel and testify in one case isn't going to slow down the process at all.


What century are you living in?

Loreweaver: Oh, I used the wrong analogy.

Thanks to this ruling, the nurse that administered the rape kit to the victim will now be required to testify, so the defense can accuse her of tainting the evidence. The tech that processed the kit will be required to testify, so the defense can accuse them of tainting the evidence. The receptionist that signed-in the patient will be required to testify, so the defense can accuse him/her of lying about the victim arriving at the hospital...

And if even one of these people don't/can't testify, the case is automatically dismissed. Because everyone knows that these random doctors, nurses, techs, and hospital receptionists all have a grudge against the defendent...

Administering a rape kit and analying it the contents are two different things on different spectrums of the process. If there was a mistake in administering a rape kit the nurse could already be called in for testimony. A lot of evidence in rape trails gets called into question things like how the clothing was stored, where clothing was stored, etc. The nurse previous to now would be more exposed because if there was any discrepency it would be the nurses fault and not the labs fault because the results were always taken as fact.

Wow, people are seriously over-estimating the resources available to the justice system. Do you REALLY think that most court houses have the people technology available to do teleconferencing in each court room? Do you think each lab has a room/technology/people to manage the tech to set up a video conference room at the lab?

This applies to the preliminary hearing. The accused has always had the right to call the tech at a full trial. This is just a HUGE waste of resources and will ultimately cause your taxes (or court fines) to raise substantially.

patrick767: Thomas supported it because Scalia did.

It would be the other way around. Thomas influences Scalia more than the other way around

bacongood: It has been awhile since i was in state criminal court, but this is what I remember.

Generally, the defendant would agree to allow the affidavit of the lab tech in, saying that the lab tech tested sample X, and the results were that sample X was (insert drug). If the defendant pled out, nothing else was really required.

Defendants fighting (demanding trial) could call the lab tech to court, but they had to pay for it, much like calling an independent expert. I saw this in a couple high level felony cases (murders, rapes), but never for drugs.

From a quick reading, it appears that now any defendant can demand the state pay for the tech to come and testify; that is the major difference. However, if a defendant does that, I know what will happen. The lab tech will come, testify, be crossed, and the defendant will still be found guilty. Then, when he is sentenced, he will receive a couple extra years. Much like the defendant who demands a jury trial over a bench trial; if you waste the state's resources, you will pay.

I prefer the old way, the state's evidence can be done by affidavit, but the state has to make the lab tech available for the defendant to call and pay for. Requiring the state to make the tech available just wastes time and will add on to sentences.

Just exactly WHY should anyone have to pay for the time of a person accusing him/her of violating the law? I guess, next, you want the defendant to pay the wages of the Court Clerk, Bailiff, Prosecutor, Judge, Jury, Arresting Officer, Etc.

soporific: SchlingFocker: ju66l3r: This is the dumbest thing ever. Dragging some poor schlub into court because he just happened to handle the sample...the same way he handles dozens of samples a day.

Perhaps, if we had actually had some public scrutiny and cross-examination of the lab guys in the courtroom, Harris County crime lab wouldn't have been able to go on falsifying and fabricating evidence for so long.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people would not be in jail.

This, this, and of course, THIS!

If any of you think this decision is a bad thing, look up the Harris County Crime Lab, here in Houston, Texas. They've sent plenty of innocent people to jail on bogus labwork, including a few on death row. If your life is on the line, whether you are facing the needle or life behind bars, you want to be able to confront a lab report that says you did it.

For further proof, I refer you to the Duke Lacrosse case.

Bad example. That was a case of a Prosecutor with holding evidence that would have cleared the suspects

captain_heroic44: Incarceration destroys families and social structures. Sending folks to prison handicaps any chance they have at getting an education and real work, destroys familial bonds that undermine the development of children, and returns people to society who have now had the lovely experience of living in a detention facility (years behind everyone else with no real skills and a host of mental issues).

Keep prison for folks who have a tendency to hurt other people and treat drug addicts as we do alcoholics, deserving of treatment and assistance. That way we'll actually work to solve the problem without creating a massive prison population that cripples large swathes of our society.

incarceration destroys families and social structures? is this a farking joke? what about the affects of murder, homelessness, and crime related to drugs. there comes a point when people have to held accountable for their actions. and im not talking about addicts or kids with pot. there is A LOT of treatment opportunities for the former...

spend a single day watching plea negotiations with repeat offenders who are not addicts, have never served time, repeatedly choose not to seek education, make no attempt to get a job unrelated to drugs, and are generally unconcerned with the prospect of going to jail, and you will realize how ridiculous your statement is.

people are living in a fantazy world where they believe college kids are serving time for an 1/8th of weed.

DamnYankees: kronicfeld: After all, the burden is on the defendant to prove his innocence, right?

Again, for the second time:

Rules of evidence are not the same thing as a burden of proof. Don't confuse them.

Until you understand that difference, stop making that silly argument.

Ok, but as everyone else who has passed the bar pointed out, these are not completely unrelated items. With a higher burden of proof necessarily comes more scrutiny of evidentiary admissibility and more rights of cross examination.

You have already showed you have not taken Criminal Procedure. In criminal law, an affidavit is basically a stipulation, not testimony and is rarely used. You completely misapplied the business records doctrine because a prosecutor's office is not a person as defined by law (Business records are by nature personal and not governmental).

If you want to be in this discussion, take Crim Pro or do an externship at the PLP and get back to us.

captain_heroic44: Which is why clear thinking people distinguish between drugs with serious deleterious effects on communities and individuals, and drugs that have less serious deleterious effects. A rational approach balances the liberty interest of individuals in self-determination against the damaging effects of the drugs. Those drugs whose damaging effects, when legalized and properly regulated, exceed the value of individuals' liberty interests in self-determination are properly prohibited. Those drugs whose damaging effects, when legalized and properly regulated, are less than the value of individuals' liberty interests in self-determination should be permitted.

Would I be wrong in asserting that we have NO IDEA what the damaging effects of crack, meth, heroin or any other drug are when legalized and properly regulated?

zelet: Wow, people are seriously over-estimating the resources available to the justice system. Do you REALLY think that most court houses have the people technology available to do teleconferencing in each court room? Do you think each lab has a room/technology/people to manage the tech to set up a video conference room at the lab?


A sprint/AT&T/T-Mobile card, a laptop, and a computer somewhere in a lab (a lab without a connection or computers would be a travesty) and you're there. Really isn't that farking hard to pull off.

MrBERZERKER: people seem to think too many drug cases are being prosecuted, and i agree to some extent. but just because its "non-violent" doesnt make it victimless. is it a good think when a suspect is not prosecuted for selling crack cocaine to an undercover cop? its "non-violent," but what is the impact of this activity on entire neighborhoods and cities? the unexagerated answer is it destroys them.

I know, right? Package stores are such a terrible detriment to the neighborhood. Ever think the problem is not the drug but the people willing to take the risks to sell it?

"Some marijuana cases don't get tested, and we end up throwing them out."

Awww. You're breakin' my heart.

Devin172: Ryan2065: Right, because having a lab tech take a whole day to travel and testify in one case isn't going to slow down the process at all.


What century are you living in?

What state do you live in? It takes a solid 8 hours to get across Kansas. In that case you have a day to drive to the prelim, a day (at least) at the prelim, and a day to drive back. Don't forget the added costs of hotel/per diem.

Marcus Aurelius: NuttierThanEver

it also means fewer rapists and serial killers too

Perhaps prosecutors will now have to focus their efforts on real crimes instead of hauling a bunch of stoners through the justice system then.

Unfortunately rapists and serial killers have less assets and cash that local police departments can sieze.

I really don't see how this is a good thing.

First off, it means that anti-social tech people (like me) have to deal with people. Second, it means techs are no longer allowed to sleep because they often work nights and will now be called in at all hours of the day to say, "yeah, I stuck the sample in the tube, ran the mostly-automated analysis, and it came out with 3 times the legal limit of booze." Then they get called names by a defense attorney because s/he is trying to make the tech appear non-credible. Then they're allowed to sit down but not to leave and catch up on sleep even though they have another 12 hour shift to pull and they aren't getting paid for this sitting in court. Then the guy gets off because the attorney managed to convince the jury that the tech was incompetent in its job because of poor fashion sense or (more likely) being unable to afford 5 days of nice court-date outfits.

And the flip side? The gain for this? The defendant can look a tech who doesn't know or care about them in the eye because this tech is his "accuser" in the same way a spectroscopic analyzer (THAT COULD BE IN NEED OF CALIBRATION!) is his "accuser."

Seems like a collosal waste of time and money most of the time, but whatever.

LittleSmitty: Bad example. That was a case of a Prosecutor with holding evidence that would have cleared the suspects


Something that would have been resolved had the defense been able to call the lab tech who administered the test and compiled the results.

This is awesome.

Considering that police labs are highly corruptible and for some reason always churn up the evidence the prosecutor is looking for, the employees should spend a little time getting grilled.

Devin172: zelet: Wow, people are seriously over-estimating the resources available to the justice system. Do you REALLY think that most court houses have the people technology available to do teleconferencing in each court room? Do you think each lab has a room/technology/people to manage the tech to set up a video conference room at the lab?


A sprint/AT&T/T-Mobile card, a laptop, and a computer somewhere in a lab (a lab without a connection or computers would be a travesty) and you're there. Really isn't that farking hard to pull off.

And the 90 year old bailiff is going to set up the other end in the court house in butt-fark-nowhere? Some courthouses have 4 employees including the judge. This isn't CSI.

I object!

ju66l3r: ju66l3r: What's next? The secretary in the precinct who typed up your report has to verify that she didn't misspell someone else's name and that she really did mean to type your name into the arrest warrant?

None of you defending this ruling want to touch that one? Surprising.

What surprise? The difference over the handling of blood and hair for the incarceration or death of a person vs Peterson or Petersen? You'll have to keep touching yourself there champ.

Oh dear, more work for their illicit drug money gains, dear me.
Maybe they ought to get rid of some of the laws that tie up lab time, court time and make criminals out of people who aren't hurting anyone.

zelet: Devin172: Ryan2065: Right, because having a lab tech take a whole day to travel and testify in one case isn't going to slow down the process at all.

What century are you living in?

What state do you live in? It takes a solid 8 hours to get across Kansas. In that case you have a day to drive to the prelim, a day (at least) at the prelim, and a day to drive back. Don't forget the added costs of hotel/per diem.

Wait. Kansas allows scientists?
(i keed, relax) ;P

zelet: What state do you live in? It takes a solid 8 hours to get across Kansas. In that case you have a day to drive to the prelim, a day (at least) at the prelim, and a day to drive back. Don't forget the added costs of hotel/per diem.


Do lawyers & labs in Kansas lack computers with internet connections?

Loreweaver: Oh, I used the wrong analogy.

Thanks to this ruling, the nurse that administered the rape kit to the victim will now be required to testify, so the defense can accuse her of tainting the evidence. The tech that processed the kit will be required to testify, so the defense can accuse them of tainting the evidence. The receptionist that signed-in the patient will be required to testify, so the defense can accuse him/her of lying about the victim arriving at the hospital...

And if even one of these people don't/can't testify, the case is automatically dismissed. Because everyone knows that these random doctors, nurses, techs, and hospital receptionists all have a grudge against the defendent...

The Duke Lacrosse Rape Case would like to have a word with you. (pops)

toonz: zelet: Devin172: Ryan2065: Right, because having a lab tech take a whole day to travel and testify in one case isn't going to slow down the process at all.

What century are you living in?

What state do you live in? It takes a solid 8 hours to get across Kansas. In that case you have a day to drive to the prelim, a day (at least) at the prelim, and a day to drive back. Don't forget the added costs of hotel/per diem.

Wait. Kansas allows scientists?
(i keed, relax) ;P

not in schools, they don't.

/wish i was keeding

O.J. Simpson didn't need this ruling.

How the hell if Fox News going to spin this decision?
I can imagine O'Reilly's head asplodin' over it.

scandalrag: DamnYankees: kronicfeld: After all, the burden is on the defendant to prove his innocence, right?

Again, for the second time:

Rules of evidence are not the same thing as a burden of proof. Don't confuse them.

Until you understand that difference, stop making that silly argument.

Ok, but as everyone else who has passed the bar pointed out, these are not completely unrelated items. With a higher burden of proof necessarily comes more scrutiny of evidentiary admissibility and more rights of cross examination.

You have already showed you have not taken Criminal Procedure. In criminal law, an affidavit is basically a stipulation, not testimony and is rarely used. You completely misapplied the business records doctrine because a prosecutor's office is not a person as defined by law (Business records are by nature personal and not governmental).

If you want to be in this discussion, take Crim Pro or do an externship at the PLP and get back to us.

dont come down too hard on him, it's not his fault he went to a lawschool that only teaches theory with no hope of getting any practice experience until after he passes the bar. ;)

vertiaset: Scientists are like prostitutes, pay them enough and they will do what you want. Hell, they will even provide you with "peer reviewed" studies showing that angels live at the bottom of the sea if enough money is involved.

well, most saltwater angelfish live around reefs which ARE generally on the bottom of the sea, just not on the abyssal plains.

MyMindIsGoingDave: sinisterben: CygnusDarius: gorgor: If they swear on a bible God should show up.

/then we can kill him again

god-mode on.

IDDQD

I was hoping someone in here had a gaming addiction in their formative years.

zelet:
And the 90 year old bailiff is going to set up the other end in the court house in butt-fark-nowhere? Some courthouses have 4 employees including the judge. This isn't CSI.


Oh shut up. I lived in the middle of farking nowhere and any case more serious than traffic infractions went to the county courthouse that has, you know, staff (including prosecutors). Courts as badly staffed as you describe aren't capable of overseeing a case requiring actually lab work to begin with (they probably lack both the prosecution & budget to even send samples to a lab). Not to mention that if the combined brainpower of the court clerk, record, bailiff, judge, and prosecution can't manage to set up a freaking computer then they really shouldn't be overseeing a case based on scientific evidence.

Jormungandr: Oh dear, more work for their illicit drug money gains, dear me.
Maybe they ought to get rid of some of the laws that tie up lab time, court time and make criminals out of people who aren't hurting anyone.

You do realize that the scientist that does the drug testing is not the same scientist that does the DNA, fingerprints, etc? You are all happy about clogging the system because you think it's all about drugs but it isn't. The labs not related to drugs are already clogged because of murderers, rapists, and wife-beaters. Now, instead of submitting a report at prelim they are going to be dragged into court TWICE. Once at prelim and then again at the trial. They are already required to go to the trial.

And, there are plenty of asshole defense attorneys that subpoena people when they have no intention of calling them to testify because they want to clog the system. Now, the defense will have 2x the opportunity to abuse the system.

toonz: zelet: Devin172: Ryan2065: Right, because having a lab tech take a whole day to travel and testify in one case isn't going to slow down the process at all.

What century are you living in?

What state do you live in? It takes a solid 8 hours to get across Kansas. In that case you have a day to drive to the prelim, a day (at least) at the prelim, and a day to drive back. Don't forget the added costs of hotel/per diem.

Wait. Kansas allows scientists?
(i keed, relax) ;P

These techs and whatnot would be working when they make these court appearances so they ought to be paid their normal rate and put up in reasonable accommodations at the taxpayer's expense. That's only fair.

Who's scientists?

if only it were the same way in the classroom.

Devin172: zelet: What state do you live in? It takes a solid 8 hours to get across Kansas. In that case you have a day to drive to the prelim, a day (at least) at the prelim, and a day to drive back. Don't forget the added costs of hotel/per diem.


Do lawyers & labs in Kansas lack computers with internet connections?

Back off Bub!
let's see YOU get from "Let there be light" to Interwebz in 6000 years. That's hardly enough time to unsaddle your dinosaur before you're expected to draw and quarter a heathen for espousing Copernican theory, much less open up the masturbation superhighway.

/again with the Kansas-bashing, what is WITH me today?

Weaver95: I wonder if this ruling will bring some level of sanity back to the ass rape we call 'DUI'....?

comments like that make me MADD

Good lord, law students crack me up.

Scrotum

Free Radical: How the hell if Fox News going to spin this decision?
I can imagine O'Reilly's head asplodin' over it.

If Orly wants to side w Scalia, they will spin it as the SCOTUS protecting the common man from activist judges putting innocent business owners in jail for having a rum and vicodin after work.

GT_bike: Weaver95: I wonder if this ruling will bring some level of sanity back to the ass rape we call 'DUI'....?

comments like that make me MADD

relax.
here...
have a drink.

gorgor: If they swear on a bible God should show up.

/then we can kill him again

This just in: Attention whore lights himself on fire

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: Scalia's decision makes no sense to me. How is this not a business records exemption?

Even if it were a "business record," which I think is highly dubious, business records aren't magically admissible just because you hold up a document and say "judge, this is a business record." The "record" still has to be authenticated, and the court still has to hear evidence of the things that qualify the document as a business record. Those vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally you need to show - again, through evidence, not mere representations of counsel - that the record was kept in the regular course of business, and that it was in the regular course of business to make that record.

Which is *very* important - imagine being confronted at the witness stand or during a deposition with a copy of a document that has your signature on it, but you *know* you never saw, signed, or would have signed had you actually been asked to.

/ Yes, this did, in fact, happen to me.
// Very glad my lawyer demanded that the original be produced.
/// It didn't exist.
//// Case dismissed.

All crime labd employees are 100% trustworthy.
There is never a reason to question them.
This will just be a nuisance to the incarceration apparatus.
I am outraged.

.

.
/Actually - woohoo! yippee! yaaaaay!!!!!

I reject this decision because I refuse to allow this find country to become number 2 in anything, including putting people in prison!

Devin172: zelet: What state do you live in? It takes a solid 8 hours to get across Kansas. In that case you have a day to drive to the prelim, a day (at least) at the prelim, and a day to drive back. Don't forget the added costs of hotel/per diem.


Do lawyers & labs in Kansas lack computers with internet connections?

Devin172: Oh shut up. I lived in the middle of farking nowhere and any case more serious than traffic infractions went to the county courthouse that has, you know, staff (including prosecutors). Courts as badly staffed as you describe aren't capable of overseeing a case requiring actually lab work to begin with (they probably lack both the prosecution & budget to even send samples to a lab). Not to mention that if the combined brainpower of the court clerk, record, bailiff, judge, and prosecution can't manage to set up a freaking computer then they really shouldn't be overseeing a case based on scientific evidence.

You've obviously never been to a rural county courthouse. Where I'm from anything bigger than a burglary is handled by the state lab then handed over to county prosecutors that do it in their spare time. The rest of the time those county prosecutors are doing divorces.

You don't understand the burden this is going to put on the system. Like I said 3 times already - the tech already to to trials. This is just forcing them to go to the prelim now too.

Bored Horde: It's not like it's hard to get a PhD on salary to present your 'science'

You sir, are my hero.

You cynism knows no bounds.

Your politics is a raging inferno of anger and singleminded leftfringe extremism.

gorgor: If they swear on a bible God should show up.

/then we can kill him again


He would be an asset to the Defendants accused of capital crimes.

Pxtl: The one I'm actually surprised by is Kennedy - he's usually pretty libertarian.

^This. In the past, I've always found his decisions most in line with my own thoughts on the matter. This is odd.

Until DNA testing requires some sort of national certification... IMHO "science" in the courtroom is a farce.

Right now, there's no certification to do DNA testing. That means anyone can perform the lab work. No education, no training requirements, etc.

But operating a hair salon without a license can get you in serious trouble.

rekoil: kronicfeld: DamnYankees: Scalia's decision makes no sense to me. How is this not a business records exemption?

Even if it were a "business record," which I think is highly dubious, business records aren't magically admissible just because you hold up a document and say "judge, this is a business record." The "record" still has to be authenticated, and the court still has to hear evidence of the things that qualify the document as a business record. Those vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally you need to show - again, through evidence, not mere representations of counsel - that the record was kept in the regular course of business, and that it was in the regular course of business to make that record.

Which is *very* important - imagine being confronted at the witness stand or during a deposition with a copy of a document that has your signature on it, but you *know* you never saw, signed, or would have signed had you actually been asked to.

/ Yes, this did, in fact, happen to me.
// Very glad my lawyer demanded that the original be produced.
/// It didn't exist.
//// Case dismissed.

God lawyer!

i made the mistake of going to traffic court on a moving violation. Cop perjured himself, and it struck me that simply saying "the cop is lying," would not work. so i paid my fine and stopped trusting the police.

/and now to bed i go, yay working at night

Pxtl: Blues_X: This woman is EXACTLY why this is a good ruling.

When The Evidence Lies (new window)

I want every death-penalty advocate to read that article 100 times.

Still support it in principle, especially in light of this ruling!

icanhazstapler: I reject this decision because I refuse to allow this find country to become number 2 in anything, including putting people in prison!

Don't worry. We are so far ahead we could take 10 years off and still be number one.




Land of the free my arse.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: Because if the record is generated at the request of law enforcement, it was prepared specifically for the purpose of a criminal prosecution, i.e. not in the "ordinary course of business," hence, business records exception out, Sixth Amendment in.

I wasn't aware that something made for the purpose of prosecution (which I might also contest is the 'purpose' of these tests) was an exception to the business records exception. I've only taken my one semester of evidence, but is that in there? I would have imagine that since doing drug tests and the like is the entire 'business' of these people, then those records are presumed to be accurate.

Maybe there is a confusion as to who is being called to testify. I think there is a big difference between bringing an expert to say these tests aren't always reliable, and bringing on the lab tech just to confirm that was the paper says is accurate.

The biggest problem I can see here is that the lab technicians who will now be required to testify can potentially become targets for retaliation. Forensic evidence would become inadmissible if the lab tech happened to have a Tragic Accident (TM) on the way to the courthouse.

I suppose "actual scientists" means no more psychiatric testimony?

Moonk: God

sigh, good, not god.

"science in the courtroom requires actual scientists in the courtroom"

Why? It's not like anyone else there will be able to understand what they say, or make a rational decision based on it. Might as well have some guy in wizard robes.

zelet: You don't understand the burden this is going to put on the system. Like I said 3 times already - the tech already to to trials. This is just forcing them to go to the prelim now too.

I'd rather have a burden put on the system (and let some guilty men go free) than have people's rights infringed upon.

Awesome ruling. Is it just me, or has SCOTUS been on a hugely impressive streak for about a year now?

The US incarceration rate is higher than Rwanda!

At this point ANYTHING that slows down the machine is good news.

In this case, it is also the right decision on ethical and legal grounds.

zelet: You've obviously never been to a rural county courthouse. Where I'm from anything bigger than a burglary is handled by the state lab then handed over to county prosecutors that do it in their spare time. The rest of the time those county prosecutors are doing divorces.


You failed to read my post. I was raised in the country. I've been to court as defendant, witness, and juror. I'm also capable of reading your posts and as I've said proper staffing is a burden for the government. "It's expensive & we can't afford to" aren't valid excuses for waiving a persons rights.

AmazingRuss: "science in the courtroom requires actual scientists in the courtroom"

Why? It's not like anyone else there will be able to understand what they say, or make a rational decision based on it. Might as well have some guy in wizard robes.

I think defense attorneys are hoping wizard robes guy is the one who shows up.

devildog123: This decision can only benefit the cause of justice in this country, not hinder it like that jackass state's attorney said. It will force a lab tech to justify their results, and make them much more of an impartial observer in the process, rather than just an arm of the prosecution.

My buddy is a tech in a crime lab in PA, and has told me that his bosses told him that their job was to help the prosecution get convictions. So, that means that you interpret the tests so that they say what you need them to say sometimes. especially if you know all that was going to happen was that your report would be entered into evidence, and you wouldn't really have to go on the stand, and explain how you got the results. Now that they do, maybe they won't be so quick to make the call that the evidence says someone is guilty, and be more willing to admit that the results of the tests can be read a couple of ways.

Does your buddy follow his bosses directives and if he does, how does he sleep at night?

pd771: zelet: You don't understand the burden this is going to put on the system. Like I said 3 times already - the tech already to to trials. This is just forcing them to go to the prelim now too.

I'd rather have a burden put on the system (and let some guilty men go free) than have people's rights infringed upon.

I agree with you. However, you are putting an undue burden on the state because the techs already had to testify at the trial. This just forces them to go to the prelim too.

HotWingConspiracy: AmazingRuss: "science in the courtroom requires actual scientists in the courtroom"

Why? It's not like anyone else there will be able to understand what they say, or make a rational decision based on it. Might as well have some guy in wizard robes.

I think defense attorneys are hoping wizard robes guy is the one who shows up.

But srsly folks

You have a right to face you accuser

guy reading off science against you... he is kinda accusing you

it is really a no brainer

Devin172: gorgor: If they swear on a bible God should show up.

/then we can kill him again


He would be an asset to the Defendants accused of capital crimes.

So would Gumby.

shavethewhales: scandalrag: DamnYankees: kronicfeld: After all, the burden is on the defendant to prove his innocence, right?

Again, for the second time:

Rules of evidence are not the same thing as a burden of proof. Don't confuse them.

Until you understand that difference, stop making that silly argument.

Ok, but as everyone else who has passed the bar pointed out, these are not completely unrelated items. With a higher burden of proof necessarily comes more scrutiny of evidentiary admissibility and more rights of cross examination.

You have already showed you have not taken Criminal Procedure. In criminal law, an affidavit is basically a stipulation, not testimony and is rarely used. You completely misapplied the business records doctrine because a prosecutor's office is not a person as defined by law (Business records are by nature personal and not governmental).

If you want to be in this discussion, take Crim Pro or do an externship at the PLP and get back to us.

dont come down too hard on him, it's not his fault he went to a lawschool that only teaches theory with no hope of getting any practice experience until after he passes the bar. ;)

Spoken like someone else who was near the bottom of the practical selection list. Yay PLP, boo student legal services! (Yes this was how our law school softball teams split for 3L. We were dumber, but we kicked their stay on-campus ass.)

Moonk: If Orly wants to side w Scalia, they will spin it as the SCOTUS protecting the common man from activist judges putting innocent business owners in jail for having a rum and vicodin after work.

That's true, at least the part about protecting people from judicial activism anyways. Scalia's decision was not activism because he was applying the confrontation clause as written, according to the original intent.

The dissent and people who don't like the decision are the ones leaning toward activism. They don't like applying the confrontation clause as written because they don't like the result as a matter of policy.

karasoth: HotWingConspiracy: AmazingRuss: "science in the courtroom requires actual scientists in the courtroom"

Why? It's not like anyone else there will be able to understand what they say, or make a rational decision based on it. Might as well have some guy in wizard robes.

I think defense attorneys are hoping wizard robes guy is the one who shows up.

But srsly folks

You have a right to face you accuser

guy reading off science against you... he is kinda accusing you

it is really a no brainer

I agree completely. Plus scuttling the idea that lab results are always correct is a good thing.

SpectroBoy: The US incarceration rate is higher than Rwanda!

And Rwanda's includes the half of the population that was guilty of genocide.

Oh, another thing the people defending this ruling missed:

Prior to this ruling, the defendent has ALWAYS had the right to challenge evidence, by calling a tech involved in the investigation to testify. Prosecutors aren't the only ones allowed to call witnesses in a trial, a fact I am certain most here have forgotten!

You know, that whole thing about calling a witness to refute evidence? However, if the defendent does not make the effort to exercise that right, it's their own damn fault.

All this ruling does is delay trial dates and makes trying cases prohibitively expensive.

HotWingConspiracy: I agree completely. Plus scuttling the idea that lab results are always correct is a good thing.

I've met many lab techs at the hospital. If they're anything like the ones at the police station, I hope to God they are made to testify. Some are smart, but some of the dumbest people I've ever met.

SpectroBoy: Since we currently put people in jail at a higher rate than Russia South Africa, and China I think maybe slowing down the incarceration machine is a good thing. It might force that machine to focus on actual bad guys.

Russia 50/50 chance of death over prison
China 75/25 chance of death over prison
South Africa - They have like 47 million people which is about equal to Miami, NYC and LA not even a vaible comparison
Now Cuba's stats are really scary!

Devin172:
You failed to read my post. I was raised in the country. I've been to court as defendant, witness, and juror. I'm also capable of reading your posts and as I've said proper staffing is a burden for the government. "It's expensive & we can't afford to" aren't valid excuses for waiving a persons rights.

I read your post. But I've been to courthouses with almost zero staff and no professional prosecutor. I've had to inform the prosecutor about current statute of limitations and another aspect of the law that could have seriously negatively affected his case.

I agree that proper staffing is a burden on the government but in republican states like mine if you even mention a tax increase you are voted out.

The system is broken and the way to fix it isn't to break it more. The previous method balanced the needs of the defendant and the needs of the state. The tech's report and method is available at the prelim and if it went to trial the tech is personally available to be cross examined. Now, the tech has to show up twice. Redundant and it doesn't help the accused.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 'Science!'

Devin172: zelet: What state do you live in? It takes a solid 8 hours to get across Kansas. In that case you have a day to drive to the prelim, a day (at least) at the prelim, and a day to drive back. Don't forget the added costs of hotel/per diem.


Do lawyers & labs in Kansas lack computers with internet connections?

Probably. Do they even have running water yet?

Loreweaver: Oh, another thing the people defending this ruling missed:

Prior to this ruling, the defendent has ALWAYS had the right to challenge evidence, by calling a tech involved in the investigation to testify. Prosecutors aren't the only ones allowed to call witnesses in a trial, a fact I am certain most here have forgotten!

You know, that whole thing about calling a witness to refute evidence? However, if the defendent does not make the effort to exercise that right, it's their own damn fault.

All this ruling does is delay trial dates and makes trying cases prohibitively expensive.

THIS!

sweetmelissa31:

"I am so confused. Why would Scalia and Thomas support this? I agree with the opinion, but it seems unlike them."

If you could get past your bias and stereotypes, it seems exactly like them. The Sixth Amendment is very clear that you have a right to be "confronted with the witnesses against [you]". If the Constitution is interpreted as a "living document" then the Court can take that right away from you at any time.

/We need an Original Intent Amendment.

pd771: HotWingConspiracy: I agree completely. Plus scuttling the idea that lab results are always correct is a good thing.

I've met many lab techs at the hospital. If they're anything like the ones at the police station, I hope to God they are made to testify. Some are smart, but some of the dumbest people I've ever met.
I worked as a Temp Lab tech once

Holy cow their are some dumb people who work for Lab companies

Can't we just let God sort these people out?

/the ones with souls, that is

Everytime I see the acronym SCOTUS, I read it as SCROTUM:
Supreme Court's Retired Old Tired Ugly Men.

griffer: Can't we just let God sort these people out?

/the ones with souls, that is

APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/l3ctog
(copy and paste)

This is a good move. Prosecutors tend to use these documents like a smoking gun rather than like scientific data. You'll rarely see a conversation about the uncertainty in the result or how that uncertainty value was derived (pardon the pun, nerds).

It's the difference between "4" and "4 + or - 2." There is no such thing as an absolute measured value in science... there's always a range of uncertainty. Sometimes this margin of error matters when it's on the line like in BAC cases.

If the law says .08 BAC is the limit and the reader comes up .081 + or - .005, there's a reasonable doubt that he's not broken the law. In fact, that + or - value isn't really a range, it's the standard deviation of the distribution... so 15.9% of the time it could be less than .076 in reality.

To make things worse, that distribution means there's a 1 in a "very large number" (over 16 standard deviations) chance that the person was completely sober, but this may be where the "beyond a reasonable doubt clause enters into things.

The law likes absolutes because it was written by idealists. I'd like to see them redefine "reasonable doubt" as "so many standard deviations over the guilty line."

Now if we can make this rule happen in Washington...
/Al Gore

Ryan2065: DamnYankees: MasterThief: I'm not sure this is going to have as big an impact as everyone thinks.

I think the argument is (at least mine is), that since it likely *won't* have much of any impact, doing it is just a waste of time and effort. It's pointlessly clogging up the system and wasting the time of lab techs.

And a huge waste of money... Sending off a lab sample could cost the county the cost of the sample AND they might have to pay to have the lab tech come out. I highly doubt rural countys have the money for that sort of thing.

They have money to incarcerate innocent civilians...

SpectroBoy: The US incarceration rate is higher than Rwanda!

At this point ANYTHING that slows down the machine is good news.

In this case, it is also the right decision on ethical and legal grounds.

Do any of you fine folks posting these graphs ever consider the country listed and the death on the way to jail probabilities there? Rwanda? Seriously you are surprised by Rwanda's prison rate vs. USA? Rwanda has about a 10 million people population USA is over 300 Million do the math on the total population and look at it again still surprised?

Whatever. The ruling is meaningless without a wise latina weighing in on it.

/scientific testimony is required only when a conviction would deprive a mother of 8 of her mang.

Here is one easy way to lessen the work load on the labs, Stop prosecuting people for non violent drug crimes.

Tex813: Now if we can make this rule happen in Washington...
/Al Gore


THIS * 10^26

A second-year law student will argue rules of procedure and evidence with arrogance and unwarranted certainty. A courtroom veteran will weigh and consider and temper their remarks based on practicality and real-world experience. Reread this thread and decide for yourself who is whom.

Howie Spankowitz: FTA: And nationwide, thousands of drug cases might have to be thrown out of court annually.

This is enough for me. Well done, Scalia (never thought I'd say that) and your colleagues. Chalk one up for individual liberty.

the impaired driver that just ran over kids on their way home from school salutes you

unless i missed your sarcasm ....

/agrees that some recreational drug use should be decriminalized

rekoil: The biggest problem I can see here is that the lab technicians who will now be required to testify can potentially become targets for retaliation. Forensic evidence would become inadmissible if the lab tech happened to have a Tragic Accident (TM) on the way to the courthouse.

So, no different than the cops, witnesses, or victims.

Move along, nothing to see here.

scandalrag: shavethewhales: scandalrag: DamnYankees: kronicfeld: After all, the burden is on the defendant to prove his innocence, right?

Again, for the second time:

Rules of evidence are not the same thing as a burden of proof. Don't confuse them.

Until you understand that difference, stop making that silly argument.

Ok, but as everyone else who has passed the bar pointed out, these are not completely unrelated items. With a higher burden of proof necessarily comes more scrutiny of evidentiary admissibility and more rights of cross examination.

You have already showed you have not taken Criminal Procedure. In criminal law, an affidavit is basically a stipulation, not testimony and is rarely used. You completely misapplied the business records doctrine because a prosecutor's office is not a person as defined by law (Business records are by nature personal and not governmental).

If you want to be in this discussion, take Crim Pro or do an externship at the PLP and get back to us.

dont come down too hard on him, it's not his fault he went to a lawschool that only teaches theory with no hope of getting any practice experience until after he passes the bar. ;)

Spoken like someone else who was near the bottom of the practical selection list. Yay PLP, boo student legal services! (Yes this was how our law school softball teams split for 3L. We were dumber, but we kicked their stay on-campus ass.)

lol, 5 of the ten guys on our 3L team played ball in College.
/still lost when four of them missed the same playoff game.
//got great practical experience during school, could competently hang a shingle after the bar if I desired.

GT_bike:

"Rwanda has about a 10 million people population USA is over 300 Million do the math on the total population and look at it again still surprised?"

Ummm, fail?

/Hint: rate has nothing to do with population size.

zelet: Jormungandr: Oh dear, more work for their illicit drug money gains, dear me.
Maybe they ought to get rid of some of the laws that tie up lab time, court time and make criminals out of people who aren't hurting anyone.

You do realize that the scientist that does the drug testing is not the same scientist that does the DNA, fingerprints, etc? You are all happy about clogging the system because you think it's all about drugs but it isn't. The labs not related to drugs are already clogged because of murderers, rapists, and wife-beaters. Now, instead of submitting a report at prelim they are going to be dragged into court TWICE. Once at prelim and then again at the trial. They are already required to go to the trial.

And, there are plenty of asshole defense attorneys that subpoena people when they have no intention of calling them to testify because they want to clog the system. Now, the defense will have 2x the opportunity to abuse the system.

Quite frankly given the disparity of resources between the prosecution and the defence, I would prefer to err on the side of the defence. They sure do mention drugs and alcohol a lot in the article drug is mentioned 5 times alcohol 2 times, drunken 3 times, DWI 2 times, weed is mentioned. To be fair DNA is mentioned 4 times. However it does seem that drugs and booze are first and foremost on their minds. I am not just happy about clogging the system because of drugs. Making the techs defend their conclusions would most likely reduce the incidence of the prosecution (or defence) getting the evidence they want.

Nakito: Reread this thread and decide for yourself who is whom.

WHARGARBBBBLE!

WHOM?

You pompous ass, keep your reasoned, closely-read, reasoned observations to yourself!

The end of Democracy is at stake!

GT_bike: Do any of you fine folks posting these graphs ever consider the country listed and the death on the way to jail probabilities there? Rwanda? Seriously you are surprised by Rwanda's prison rate vs. USA? Rwanda has about a 10 million people population USA is over 300 Million do the math on the total population and look at it again still surprised?

Do you understand what "per 100,000 population" means?

pope183: Howie Spankowitz: FTA: And nationwide, thousands of drug cases might have to be thrown out of court annually.

This is enough for me. Well done, Scalia (never thought I'd say that) and your colleagues. Chalk one up for individual liberty.

the impaired driver that just ran over kids on their way home from school salutes you

unless i missed your sarcasm ....

/agrees that some recreational drug use should be decriminalized

By that argument, alcohol should be illegal, right?

Gotta say "well done" to the majority here. Read too many scary things about what goes on in crime labs.

zelet: Devin172:

The system is broken and the way to fix it isn't to break it more. The previous method balanced the needs of the defendant and the needs of the state. The tech's report and method is available at the prelim and if it went to trial the tech is personally available to be cross examined. Now, the tech has to show up twice. Redundant and it doesn't help the accused.

Sorry, but if the emperor's nekkid, it's not the fault of his subjects. Balancing the states needs as you referenced makes it even, no?

...which is sure as heck not "innocent 'til proven guilty". That policy in itself skews the odds in favor of the defendant, which is JUST as it should be.

sinisterben: IDDQD

IDKFA
IDSPISPOPD

Oh god... I'm a sad, sad man...

KickahaOta: Under Crawford, one of the first questions to ask about any piece of evidence is "Is this testimonial?" In other words, did the person who made this statement or wrote this report or whatever do so with the intention of having that statement introduced in court against this particular defendant? If so, then the Confrontation Clause applies, and there has to be an opportunity for cross-examination.

If I'm not mistaken, this definition "testimony" might have 5th amendment implications too - if a lab test relies on bodily samples taken against a defendant's will, can he demand it be thrown out as self-incrimination?

/yet another reason to APPLAUD this decision!
//If I were a pic poster, I'd have posted that clapping audience, Kane, the Joker, and as many similar by now!

But won't all of this traveling that the techs will have to do result in more global warming and polar bears falling off icebergs and drowning?

GT_bike: SpectroBoy: The US incarceration rate is higher than Rwanda!

At this point ANYTHING that slows down the machine is good news.

In this case, it is also the right decision on ethical and legal grounds.

Do any of you fine folks posting these graphs ever consider the country listed and the death on the way to jail probabilities there? Rwanda? Seriously you are surprised by Rwanda's prison rate vs. USA? Rwanda has about a 10 million people population USA is over 300 Million do the math on the total population and look at it again still surprised?

If you read the graphs you would see that they list prisoners per 100,000 population. The population size doesn't matter I mean you guys have almost as many people in your prison system as Rwanda has people. Are you being stupid on purpose?

GT_bike: Rwanda has about a 10 million people population USA is over 300 Million do the math on the total population and look at it again still surprised?

Ummmmm the charts posted were normalized to the population size. For example, people incarcerated PER 1,000 population. So the size of the country does not factor in.

/Math is hard.

Law students... more like LOL students AM I RIGHT??!!

hmmm... wait a sec... I see a bunch of people here who think this is about loosening up on crime prosecution... weird...

It's about giving people a fair trial by pursuing the truth instead of just assuming something to be true on the virtue that the person wears a lab coat and isn't having their data misrepresented by a lawyer (which is strongly to their advantage).

Has anyone ever considered that the lab personnel themselves have a motive in all of this? They get more samples to test if they don't discourage the customer. Hell, it's a conflict of interest as soon as someone gets paid for it.

jfarkinB: Do you understand what "per 100,000 population" means?

Clearly he does not.

High school dropout maybe?

+1 on the ruling. I can't believe there is anyone against this ruling.

Weaver95: ok, why do I not see a problem with this SCOTUS ruling? this all seems like a damn good thing for 'we the people'.

For one thing, 'we the people' will be footing the bill to transport and house lab techs who are called to testify that "yes, I put the sample in the machine and pressed the 'START' button. 15 seconds later, the analysis printed out. I initialed the sheet, and put it in the folder."

Multiply that by a couple of dozen times a day, times a few dozen cities. Since a lot of smaller municipalities and counties use commercial labs several states away, this will quickly add up to lots of $$$$.
It will inflate the budgets of police departments and court systems. Judicial resources are already stretched thin, this will make it even worse. Cases will be delayed for years. Lab results will take that much longer to get because all of their techs will be in places like the Motel 6 in East Bumfark, SD waiting to testify in The People of South Dakota vs. John Doe.
Innocent defendants will have their lives ruined while they wait for exoneration, and guilty ones will get released.

RoyBatty:

I like you.

Thanks, I like me too, enough to give myself a hand job every now and then.

Wow, never thought I'd be on Scalia's or Thomas's side when it comes to...well...anything, really. Very interesting decision.

B A:
Just exactly WHY should anyone have to pay for the time of a person accusing him/her of violating the law? I guess, next, you want the defendant to pay the wages of the Court Clerk, Bailiff, Prosecutor, Judge, Jury, Arresting Officer, Etc.

Because they are the one calling him to present that evidence. Lots of rights work like that; you have a right to bear arms, but the government doesn't buy them for you. If the state refused to disclose what tech did the work, that is an issue. But requiring the state to pay to drive him over and testify is just silly if the state's evidence can adequately be presented by affidavit.

Also, you should read the fines included when you are convicted/plead out of any felony, you are paying for a lot of those services.

benlonghair: One way or the other, prosecution has most of the advantages, plus many people are of the opinion "Well he's being prosecuted, and they wouldn't prosecute somebody who wasn't guilty."

THIS. At least a third of every jury is already CONVINCED of guilt, solely because they are on trial. Jury Selection pools should be WAY bigger, because such a high percentage of people are failjurors (auto-indict, auto-release, durr whats a DNA?).

/expert witness
/getting a kick, etc.

Does this mean that each jury/judge is going to have to be schooled in the topic of basic statistics, like probability, p-values, population vs. sample, importance of blinding and bias reduction, etc etc.?

TheKnownUniverse: Law students... more like LOL students AM I RIGHT??!!

*highfive*

I have no faith in the US justice system. In addition to the quack fiber/hair "scientists" that get people convicted, here are some other examples:

-Innocent mothers/babysitters are being sent to prison for life or executed because some quack doctors may decide a baby died of "shaken baby syndrome" rather than just a fall or other undiagnosed illness.

-People are put in jail and executed for "arsons" that are in reality just accidental fires. High-school dropout fire inspectors will say that anything is arson. See http://truthinjustice.org/willingham.htm (and other links on that site)

-People are now being put in jail or labeled as sex offenders for life simply because an obscene photo (or even obscene JAPANESE CARTOON) ends up on their computer, or cellphone somehow. Even 14 year old girls are being charged with child pr0n for taking pics of THEMSELVES in the mirror!!!

-Hysteria erupts when someone starts accusing people of child molestation when molestation never happened. Toddlers and young children are then trained by prosecutors to say what they want on the witness stand, like parrots. I refer you to a previous Fark headline about that this week.

and that's not counting people getting 20+ years in prison for possessing PLANT LEAVES.

Once I get the job opportunities and the resources to do so, I am leaving this "free" country.

SpectroBoy: Since we currently put people in jail at a higher rate than Russia South Africa, and China I think maybe slowing down the incarceration machine is a good thing. It might force that machine to focus on actual bad guys.


I have a beef with your charts, depite the fact that I agree we should spend less resources hunting down small pot dealers and drug users. One of the problems is that it averages out the Prison collection for the EU. The European Union should either be looked at as a whole or in peices. I'm sure it wouldn't rise much but however, I would in fact be more interested in the case either way.

GT_bike: Do any of you fine folks posting these graphs ever consider the country listed and the death on the way to jail probabilities there? Rwanda? Seriously you are surprised by Rwanda's prison rate vs. USA? Rwanda has about a 10 million people population USA is over 300 Million do the math on the total population and look at it again still surprised?

KickahaOta: A speed camera is not a witness, any more than the speed limit sign on the highway is a witness, or any more than the radar gun in a patrol car is a witness. A speed camera is a piece of machinery. It is a tool. It has no independent intentions. It does not give testimony. You cannot cross-examine it.

Disagrees:



"Rights, sir, human rights. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, a right to which my client has been denied. ... The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It's a machine, an information system. ... I repeat, I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the level of the machine. Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us."

This case is wrong on its own terms.

But it has bigger implications than drug cases or even DNA-- a lot of people believe that the traditional "coroner's report" exception to the hearsay rule is now toast.

This will in effect operate as a statute of limitations on murder. When you find the murderer 30 years after the crime, and the doctor who did the report is dead . . . you got nothing to prove the cause of death.

Sotomayor, an ex-ADA, may be prone to revisit this case when the issue pops up on their docket again, as it surely will.

I'm all for making marijuana legal and using alternative forms of punishment for non-violent offenders. I think it is horrifying that so many people in jail are there for minor drug charges.

That said, I just don't get those who are jumping up and down cheering for this. There is no reason why the specific lab tech who ran the tests needs to physically be there to testify 99% of the time. What is that going to prove? This is only going to slow down the legal system and let a whole lot of bad guys (including violent ones) go free. Should there really be a mistrial because some random lab tech who ran a simple test 2 years ago has long since quit / moved away / etc and can't be found?

Celebrating a stupid policy because it will reduce the impact of another stupid policy is well... stupid.

Loreweaver: Prior to this ruling, the defendent has ALWAYS had the right to challenge evidence

That is not true in DUI cases. Judges routinely dismiss motions to have breathalyzer manufacturers testify about the reliability of their devices. Challenging a breathalyzer test is difficult, if not impossible, in most states.

That's why this was such a big decision (pops), even though the guy was convicted anyway.

I never thought Scalia would write an opinion I would agree with, but there you go.

Oh, and I love this:

In drunken driving cases, Fairfax also faces a problem. In most DWI cases, the county uses breath-test technicians stationed in the jail to perform the blood-alcohol tests rather than the arresting officers so the entire 1,300-officer force does not have to be trained on the machines. But there are only a few dozen technicians in Fairfax processing about 4,000 DWI cases a year. Training Virginia's largest police force on the machines is not feasible financially, spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings said.

Fairfax county, in case you forgot, is the same place that arrested people who had designated drivers AT THE FARKING BAR (pops). Anything that makes more trouble for them is fine by me.

During the Christmas season of 2003 in Fairfax County, Virginia, a suburb of Washington not far from the site of Debra Bolton's arrest, local police took pre-emptive law enforcement to an absurd extreme, launching a sting operation that targeted 20 local bars and restaurants. The mission: apprehend "drunk" patrons before they try to drive. These drinkers were far from their cars and in some cases did not even own cars. What type of evidence did the police use to measure intoxication? According to one law enforcement official involved in the sting, the determination could be made based on unflicked cigarette ashes, an excessive number of restroom visits, noisy cursing, or a wobbly walk.

I sincerely hope Fairfax county goes bankrupt because of this decision. Never in the history of the United States has there been a bigger example of a police force with too much money and nothing to do.

Here are some links:

http://www.getmadd.com/BarsofVirginia.htm (pops)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bar_raids_irritate_owners_drinkers.html (pops)
http://www.duiblog.com/2006/03/ (pops)

I have absolutely no faith in any police department. Most of them are staffed by jocks who couldn't find anything else to do after high school. If I'm going to be arrested and convicted of a crime, I want Stephen f'ing Hawking making presentations about my guilt, not Bluto the life failure.

wmoonfox: sinisterben: IDDQD

IDKFA
IDSPISPOPD

Oh god... I'm a sad, sad man...

BFG9000, FTW!

Man, all this legal mumbo jumbo is boring


/I

All this nonsense about the expense

This is one of those areas where so long as the Government isn't flying them first class and booking them in at the Presidential Suite I have no problem with the government spending money on this

tedbundee: Man, all this legal mumbo jumbo is boring


/I

goddamnit, that was supposed to be

/I(heart)ANAL

captain_heroic44: Loreweaver: Oh, I used the wrong analogy.

Thanks to this ruling, the nurse that administered the rape kit to the victim will now be required to testify, so the defense can accuse her of tainting the evidence. The tech that processed the kit will be required to testify, so the defense can accuse them of tainting the evidence.

And if even one of these people don't/can't testify, the case is automatically dismissed. Because everyone knows that these random doctors, nurses, techs, and hospital receptionists all have a grudge against the defendent...

It's also wrong that we require the victim to testify, and be cross-examined. We should dispense with that requirement too. When a woman accuses a man of rape, she should be BELIEVED.

Except that in the scenario I outlined, you are requiring testimony from people who have no bearing on the case. It becomes an attempt by the defense to accuse random people, with no connection to the victim or the suspect, of specfically conspiring against his client. In effect, it is nothing more than a distraction.

This is like so many things that occur. At first there's a lot of whining and then, not so much and even later it's, Meh

Because let's face it #1 everyone makes errors. #2) some folks are malicious. #3) Not all Police officers, doctors, lawyers or judges are smart.

It might also have many positive un-intended consequences like more certainty for arrest, seeing cases for what they are and making spurious (harassing) arrests less attractive.

Denial_of_Death: KickahaOta: A speed camera is not a witness, any more than the speed limit sign on the highway is a witness, or any more than the radar gun in a patrol car is a witness. A speed camera is a piece of machinery. It is a tool. It has no independent intentions. It does not give testimony. You cannot cross-examine it.

Disagrees:



"Rights, sir, human rights. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, a right to which my client has been denied. ... The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It's a machine, an information system. ... I repeat, I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the level of the machine. Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us."

Edited for truth.

DamnYankees: I wasn't aware that something made for the purpose of prosecution (which I might also contest is the 'purpose' of these tests) was an exception to the business records exception.

Then either you or your evidence professor sucks.

ossaFK: Once I get the job opportunities and the resources to do so, I am leaving this "free" country.

And where are you going to go to Mr. internet tough guy?

tedbundee: tedbundee: Man, all this legal mumbo jumbo is boring


/I

goddamnit, that was supposed to be

/I(heart)ANAL

Who's Anal?

OK, I'm really busy lately, so I'm sharing this billion-dollar-idea with anyone who has the energy to put it together: In-court testing devices. Drop in the sample, get the result. It should be a breeze for blood alcohol and other blood factors. Maybe a little more time consumming for DNA tests. The judge can be the lab tech - dropping the sample into the machine herself - thus eliminating the Sixth Amendment issue.

Denial_of_Death: KickahaOta: A speed camera is not a witness, any more than the speed limit sign on the highway is a witness, or any more than the radar gun in a patrol car is a witness. A speed camera is a piece of machinery. It is a tool. It has no independent intentions. It does not give testimony. You cannot cross-examine it.

Disagrees:



"Rights, sir, human rights. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, a right to which my client has been denied. ... The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It's a machine, an information system. ... I repeat, I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the level of the machine. Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us."

And I just got a stinkin' photo speeding ticket with no court date to demand the camera system show up in court! Have these been successfully challenged yet?

sweetmelissa31: I am so confused. Why would Scalia and Thomas support this? I agree with the opinion, but it seems unlike them.

This is EXACTLY like them. Liberal/conservative is a really stupid way to slice the SCOTUS. Better would be: formalist/pragmatist, originalist/other (recognizing that the Js themselves are not consistent).

Marcintosh: This is like so many things that occur. At first there's a lot of whining and then, not so much and even later it's, Meh

Because let's face it #1 everyone makes errors. #2) some folks are malicious. #3) Not all Police officers, doctors, lawyers or judges are smart.

It might also have many positive un-intended consequences like more certainty for arrest, seeing cases for what they are and making spurious (harassing) arrests less attractive.

Let's say you are a mindless drone just going about your job every day and you work, well for arguments sake, let's say 3 lab tests a day. Now, fast forward a year later (that's 780 cases later) do you really think the tech will remember the specifics of the case? They should already document any problems that arise and if they don't document them then I doubt they are going to bring them up in the trial. If they already document mistakes, then what is the point of calling them to the stand if nothing is documented as going wrong.

Those who cant teach , preach

actually that makes no sense to me but it sounded catchy

Strauuman: OK, I'm really busy lately, so I'm sharing this billion-dollar-idea with anyone who has the energy to put it together: In-court testing devices. Drop in the sample, get the result. It should be a breeze for blood alcohol and other blood factors. Maybe a little more time consumming for DNA tests. The judge can be the lab tech - dropping the sample into the machine herself - thus eliminating the Sixth Amendment issue.

Nice except the tests have to be preformed within 24 hours of accident in the case of dui, no just blood taken

sweetmelissa31: I am so confused. Why would Scalia and Thomas support this? I agree with the opinion, but it seems unlike them.


Because in reality they aren't the 2-dimensional caricatures you've been told to believe they are. (OK, at least SCALIA isn't...)

Tricky Chicken: And I just got a stinkin' photo speeding ticket with no court date to demand the camera system show up in court! Have these been successfully challenged yet?

In as much as some towns have decided to stop using them due to the increased accidents caused by lowering the yellow time on stop lights to catch more people and increase revenue, yes, they have.

I am criminal defense attorney. I can state with all certainty that this case will result in the decrease in wrongful convictions and wrongful probation violations.

For example, pursuant to TCA 40-35-311 a person can have their probation violated based on a positive drug screen report that has an affidavit, by the "certifying technician", attach that states the sample was tested, the type of test preformed, a statement that it was most accurate test for that particular drug, and contains a declaration that all established procedures and protocols were followed.

If this is done correctly there is zero that a defense attorney can do to challenge the result. ZERO!

First the statute does not define a certifying technician as the person who actually preformed the test, so it can be an untrained person, who has been given the title of "certifying technical," who simply completes the paperwork so the lab result is admissible.

Judging from the affidavits I have seen it appears that it is simply the person who has been given the title and not the person who actually preformed the test. This raises the question of how that "certifying technician" would have any knowledge about whether the test preformed is actually the most accurate test for the particular drug, about whether protocols were actually followed, etc...

To make matters worse, I cannot cross examine the affidavit and ask questions about common substances that my client might have ingested that could cause false positives. For example, Advil and Aleve are known to cause a false positive for THC, Liver disease is known to cause false positives for a number of drugs, etc.... Without being able to cross examine the person who allegedly tested the evidence the judge doesn't have any knowledge about the test used could accurately eliminate this and other common false positive results.

Additionally, I cannot cross examine the affidavit to raise issues challenging whether the type of test preformed was the most accurate for the substance tested. For example, I maintain that the Carbon Isotope test (an incredibly expensive test) is better to test for many substances than the GC/MS test. However, without the lab tech there I cannot raise the issue unless I am able to hire a expert (the closest one who is two hours away) at costs two to three thousand dollars, which most of my client cannot afford.

You might also find it interested, when I have filed motions requesting that the lab technician in question either be required to appear in court or supplement their affidavit to specifically address the most accurate test issue and provide a list substances which could cause false positives, the District Attorney objected. However, during arguments I argued that the Court has been under a mistaken belief that the test results are 100% accurate when that is simply not the case. I further pointed out to the Court that over the counter medications can result in false positives, as noted the opinion in State v. Wade, 863 S.W2d 406 (Tenn. 1993), where the court noted that Advil could cause a false positive for THC. I also argued that the court, without this information, might be placing totally innocent persons in jail/prison due to the mistaken belief that the results are always 100% accurate, so the court needed to hera this evidence not just for my client's case but all similar cases that come before it. The judge ordered the state to have the lab technician present in court and set a new trial date. When I appeared for the next court date the lab tech was not present and the DA moved to dismiss the case. In other words, the DA wants to be able to continue presenting problematic evidence that simply cannot withstand a vigorous cross examination by a defense attorney. The DA knew that if the judge heard heard how unreliable the evidence was that they would have problems in all future cases, because if the judge ever heard the problems with the evidence the judge could take judicial notice of the problems making the DA's job much more difficult.

There is no doubt that evidence presented in the courts in Tennessee via affidavit has resulted in the incarceration of hundreds of innocent persons each and every year. I welcome the Supreme Court of the United States most recent opinion.

There are so many of these crime/justice stories, and there are always tons of them that are worth reading about (and some aren't posted since "not news" is always overloaded.

FARK has a "not news", "sports", "entertainment", etc tab to group these stories.

It's almost worth considering a "Not Justice" tab for this site to accommodate the demand (i.e. for the Iran stories, U.S. crap justice stories, etc).

I also agree that we should decriminalize drugs anyway, but still have a question about the charts. Maybe we are just better at catching criminals than those other countries?

My buddy is a tech in a crime lab in PA, and has told me that his bosses told him that their job was to help the prosecution get convictions. So, that means that you interpret the tests so that they say what you need them to say sometimes. especially if you know all that was going to happen was that your report would be entered into evidence, and you wouldn't really have to go on the stand, and explain how you got the results. Now that they do, maybe they won't be so quick to make the call that the evidence says someone is guilty, and be more willing to admit that the results of the tests can be read a couple of ways.

More THIS stuff. Seriously, this is how they roll. if your attorney doesn't have an expert witness to go 'actually, this test could be read THAT way', you are boned.

Again, yes, I'm an expert witness that left a test lab
/all the good ones do
//lab money sucks
///so the ones left aren't that bright
////*puts on shades* YEEEEAAAAAAAH

Dracolich: It's about giving people a fair trial by pursuing the truth instead of just assuming something to be true on the virtue that the person wears a lab coat and isn't having their data misrepresented by a lawyer (which is strongly to their advantage).

I don't get this statement... So are you saying that a lab tech is going to remember the details of every sample he or she tests and will be able to testify that everything was done correctly? The point of having the lab tech there and not just someone who knows about these kinds of tests is to give the specifics of that particular sample and what happened with that sample. As I said above, if they don't document any mistakes then they aren't going to be bringing them up a few months or a few years later in the trial so what is the point of having them there when nothing is documented as going wrong?

vertiaset: give me doughnuts

"Rights, sir, human rights. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, a right to which my client has been denied. ... The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It's a machine, an information system. ... I repeat, I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the level of the machine. Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us."

Edited for truth.



You mean edited out of ignorance and prejudice.


Nah, he makes a good point. "Thou shalt not murder" didn't apply to all humans, just all followers of their faith... not their slaves and certainly not their enemies (read the other books for how they treated them, spoiler: it's not cheerful). True those followers were humans, but I believe the conversation here is about base rights, not those of a sub-group.

Even the new testament doesn't do anything for human rights. Saying that it's a good idea to help others isn't giving them rights. Telling people not to do bad things is also not giving their would-be victim rights (do unto others bit).

Loreweaver: Thanks to this ruling, the nurse that administered the rape kit to the victim will now be required to testify, so the defense can accuse her of tainting the evidence. The tech that processed the kit will be required to testify, so the defense can accuse them of tainting the evidence. The receptionist that signed-in the patient will be required to testify, so the defense can accuse him/her of lying about the victim arriving at the hospital...

You must have missed my earlier posting. The E.R. nurse that administers the rape kit is already required to testify as to procedures, chain of evidence, etc.

JeffreyScott: I am able to hire a expert (the closest one who is two hours away) at costs two to three thousand dollars, which most of my client cannot afford.

Heh, there is a very small chance that you've hired me before. :)

Tennessee

Or not. Still, this guy is right.

/i post too much in these crime evidence threads

KickerOfElvis: I also agree that we should decriminalize drugs anyway, but still have a question about the charts. Maybe we are just better at catching criminals than those other countries?

And amazingly, that astounding ability to catch criminals ramped up at exactly the same time the "War on Drugs" started!

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this ruling, but I don't think people should just arbitrarily dismiss this as "no big imposition on the lab technicians", because it is. It seems like defense lawyers should have have to show some proof that the lab tech might have screwed up before calling them (i.e. all records of work done by that technician should be available to the defendants, results of controls, etc.). That's like calling the manufacturer of a radar gun, and asking them "Do you personally remember certifying that this radar gun is accurate?" If the tech can't answer yes, it brings in doubt. And in this day in age, jurors will look for the 00.01% uncertainty in a testimony to let someone off (not just marijuana users, but murderers and rapists as well).

So yeah, just seriously consider that for a second.

Marcus Aurelius: Let's hope this puts a nail into the coffin of red light and speed cameras at the same time.

So much THIS, so little time

Ryan2065: Now, fast forward a year later (that's 780 cases later) do you really think the tech will remember the specifics of the case?

07-24-2007
Case # 1,234,212
Victim: White female
Name: Unknown
Age: 20-25


10:47- I sneezed, but turned my head exactly 87 degress to the right, covered my nose and mouth. Involuntary muscles caused my eyes to close, that plus the angle of my head meant that the decedant was out of sight for 2-3 seconds. Changed gloves.

10:52- My wife changed detergent, and I believe the new formulation is a skin irritant which is causing my scrotum irritation. I just scratched my balls. Decedant remained in sight. Changed gloves.

10:58- Descedant was a healthy blond woman. Evidence of high quality plastic surgery found in her perfect breasts. Identifying marks: Tattoo on the small of her back, and another on her ankle. Multiple ear piercings, as well as her tongue and clitoral hood. Sctoru still itches. Body not leaving my sight. Gloves changed.

11:07- Stil visually examining the body. She was very attractive. Oops. Changed gloves.

vertiaset: give me doughnuts

"Rights, sir, human rights. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, a right to which my client has been denied. ... The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It's a machine, an information system. ... I repeat, I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the level of the machine. Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us."

Edited for truth.



You mean edited out of ignorance and prejudice.

No, I was right. Your book has no place in a court of law.

JeffreyScott

You don't address why we need the lab tech who worked the sample to testify in the trial. Have the lab tech's name and his credentials stapled to each case he works and then call him if there is a problem with the results or his credentials that you want to argue over. Otherwise, why couldn't anyone who knows about this stuff testify about the different tests and all that jazz?

give me doughnuts: vertiaset: give me doughnuts

Edited for truth.

You mean edited out of ignorance and prejudice.

No, I was right. Your book has no place in a court of law.

Dudes, it's STAR TREK!

griffer: give me doughnuts: vertiaset: give me doughnuts

Edited for truth.

You mean edited out of ignorance and prejudice.

No, I was right. Your book has no place in a court of law.

Dudes, it's STAR TREK!

Fark will turn anything into a religion thread.