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!