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.