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?