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.