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

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

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

Quite frankly given the disparity of resources between the prosecution and the defence, I would prefer to err on the side of the defence. They sure do mention drugs and alcohol a lot in the article drug is mentioned 5 times alcohol 2 times, drunken 3 times, DWI 2 times, weed is mentioned. To be fair DNA is mentioned 4 times. However it does seem that drugs and booze are first and foremost on their minds. I am not just happy about clogging the system because of drugs. Making the techs defend their conclusions would most likely reduce the incidence of the prosecution (or defence) getting the evidence they want.

Nakito: Reread this thread and decide for yourself who is whom.

WHARGARBBBBLE!

WHOM?

You pompous ass, keep your reasoned, closely-read, reasoned observations to yourself!

The end of Democracy is at stake!

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

Do you understand what "per 100,000 population" means?

pope183: Howie Spankowitz: FTA: And nationwide, thousands of drug cases might have to be thrown out of court annually.

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

the impaired driver that just ran over kids on their way home from school salutes you

unless i missed your sarcasm ....

/agrees that some recreational drug use should be decriminalized

By that argument, alcohol should be illegal, right?

Gotta say "well done" to the majority here. Read too many scary things about what goes on in crime labs.

zelet: Devin172:

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

Sorry, but if the emperor's nekkid, it's not the fault of his subjects. Balancing the states needs as you referenced makes it even, no?

...which is sure as heck not "innocent 'til proven guilty". That policy in itself skews the odds in favor of the defendant, which is JUST as it should be.

sinisterben: IDDQD

IDKFA
IDSPISPOPD

Oh god... I'm a sad, sad man...

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

If I'm not mistaken, this definition "testimony" might have 5th amendment implications too - if a lab test relies on bodily samples taken against a defendant's will, can he demand it be thrown out as self-incrimination?

/yet another reason to APPLAUD this decision!
//If I were a pic poster, I'd have posted that clapping audience, Kane, the Joker, and as many similar by now!

But won't all of this traveling that the techs will have to do result in more global warming and polar bears falling off icebergs and drowning?

GT_bike: SpectroBoy: The US incarceration rate is higher than Rwanda!

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

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

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

If you read the graphs you would see that they list prisoners per 100,000 population. The population size doesn't matter I mean you guys have almost as many people in your prison system as Rwanda has people. Are you being stupid on purpose?

GT_bike: Rwanda has about a 10 million people population USA is over 300 Million do the math on the total population and look at it again still surprised?

Ummmmm the charts posted were normalized to the population size. For example, people incarcerated PER 1,000 population. So the size of the country does not factor in.

/Math is hard.

Law students... more like LOL students AM I RIGHT??!!

hmmm... wait a sec... I see a bunch of people here who think this is about loosening up on crime prosecution... weird...

It's about giving people a fair trial by pursuing the truth instead of just assuming something to be true on the virtue that the person wears a lab coat and isn't having their data misrepresented by a lawyer (which is strongly to their advantage).

Has anyone ever considered that the lab personnel themselves have a motive in all of this? They get more samples to test if they don't discourage the customer. Hell, it's a conflict of interest as soon as someone gets paid for it.

jfarkinB: Do you understand what "per 100,000 population" means?

Clearly he does not.

High school dropout maybe?

+1 on the ruling. I can't believe there is anyone against this ruling.

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

For one thing, 'we the people' will be footing the bill to transport and house lab techs who are called to testify that "yes, I put the sample in the machine and pressed the 'START' button. 15 seconds later, the analysis printed out. I initialed the sheet, and put it in the folder."

Multiply that by a couple of dozen times a day, times a few dozen cities. Since a lot of smaller municipalities and counties use commercial labs several states away, this will quickly add up to lots of $$$$.
It will inflate the budgets of police departments and court systems. Judicial resources are already stretched thin, this will make it even worse. Cases will be delayed for years. Lab results will take that much longer to get because all of their techs will be in places like the Motel 6 in East Bumfark, SD waiting to testify in The People of South Dakota vs. John Doe.
Innocent defendants will have their lives ruined while they wait for exoneration, and guilty ones will get released.

RoyBatty:

I like you.

Thanks, I like me too, enough to give myself a hand job every now and then.

Wow, never thought I'd be on Scalia's or Thomas's side when it comes to...well...anything, really. Very interesting decision.

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

Because they are the one calling him to present that evidence. Lots of rights work like that; you have a right to bear arms, but the government doesn't buy them for you. If the state refused to disclose what tech did the work, that is an issue. But requiring the state to pay to drive him over and testify is just silly if the state's evidence can adequately be presented by affidavit.

Also, you should read the fines included when you are convicted/plead out of any felony, you are paying for a lot of those services.

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

THIS. At least a third of every jury is already CONVINCED of guilt, solely because they are on trial. Jury Selection pools should be WAY bigger, because such a high percentage of people are failjurors (auto-indict, auto-release, durr whats a DNA?).

/expert witness
/getting a kick, etc.

Does this mean that each jury/judge is going to have to be schooled in the topic of basic statistics, like probability, p-values, population vs. sample, importance of blinding and bias reduction, etc etc.?

TheKnownUniverse: Law students... more like LOL students AM I RIGHT??!!

*highfive*

I have no faith in the US justice system. In addition to the quack fiber/hair "scientists" that get people convicted, here are some other examples:

-Innocent mothers/babysitters are being sent to prison for life or executed because some quack doctors may decide a baby died of "shaken baby syndrome" rather than just a fall or other undiagnosed illness.

-People are put in jail and executed for "arsons" that are in reality just accidental fires. High-school dropout fire inspectors will say that anything is arson. See http://truthinjustice.org/willingham.htm (and other links on that site)

-People are now being put in jail or labeled as sex offenders for life simply because an obscene photo (or even obscene JAPANESE CARTOON) ends up on their computer, or cellphone somehow. Even 14 year old girls are being charged with child pr0n for taking pics of THEMSELVES in the mirror!!!

-Hysteria erupts when someone starts accusing people of child molestation when molestation never happened. Toddlers and young children are then trained by prosecutors to say what they want on the witness stand, like parrots. I refer you to a previous Fark headline about that this week.

and that's not counting people getting 20+ years in prison for possessing PLANT LEAVES.

Once I get the job opportunities and the resources to do so, I am leaving this "free" country.

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


I have a beef with your charts, depite the fact that I agree we should spend less resources hunting down small pot dealers and drug users. One of the problems is that it averages out the Prison collection for the EU. The European Union should either be looked at as a whole or in peices. I'm sure it wouldn't rise much but however, I would in fact be more interested in the case either way.

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

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

Disagrees:



"Rights, sir, human rights. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, a right to which my client has been denied. ... The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It's a machine, an information system. ... I repeat, I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the level of the machine. Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us."

This case is wrong on its own terms.

But it has bigger implications than drug cases or even DNA-- a lot of people believe that the traditional "coroner's report" exception to the hearsay rule is now toast.

This will in effect operate as a statute of limitations on murder. When you find the murderer 30 years after the crime, and the doctor who did the report is dead . . . you got nothing to prove the cause of death.

Sotomayor, an ex-ADA, may be prone to revisit this case when the issue pops up on their docket again, as it surely will.

I'm all for making marijuana legal and using alternative forms of punishment for non-violent offenders. I think it is horrifying that so many people in jail are there for minor drug charges.

That said, I just don't get those who are jumping up and down cheering for this. There is no reason why the specific lab tech who ran the tests needs to physically be there to testify 99% of the time. What is that going to prove? This is only going to slow down the legal system and let a whole lot of bad guys (including violent ones) go free. Should there really be a mistrial because some random lab tech who ran a simple test 2 years ago has long since quit / moved away / etc and can't be found?

Celebrating a stupid policy because it will reduce the impact of another stupid policy is well... stupid.

Loreweaver: Prior to this ruling, the defendent has ALWAYS had the right to challenge evidence

That is not true in DUI cases. Judges routinely dismiss motions to have breathalyzer manufacturers testify about the reliability of their devices. Challenging a breathalyzer test is difficult, if not impossible, in most states.

That's why this was such a big decision (pops), even though the guy was convicted anyway.

I never thought Scalia would write an opinion I would agree with, but there you go.

Oh, and I love this:

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

Fairfax county, in case you forgot, is the same place that arrested people who had designated drivers AT THE FARKING BAR (pops). Anything that makes more trouble for them is fine by me.

During the Christmas season of 2003 in Fairfax County, Virginia, a suburb of Washington not far from the site of Debra Bolton's arrest, local police took pre-emptive law enforcement to an absurd extreme, launching a sting operation that targeted 20 local bars and restaurants. The mission: apprehend "drunk" patrons before they try to drive. These drinkers were far from their cars and in some cases did not even own cars. What type of evidence did the police use to measure intoxication? According to one law enforcement official involved in the sting, the determination could be made based on unflicked cigarette ashes, an excessive number of restroom visits, noisy cursing, or a wobbly walk.

I sincerely hope Fairfax county goes bankrupt because of this decision. Never in the history of the United States has there been a bigger example of a police force with too much money and nothing to do.

Here are some links:

http://www.getmadd.com/BarsofVirginia.htm (pops)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bar_raids_irritate_owners_drinkers.html (pops)
http://www.duiblog.com/2006/03/ (pops)

I have absolutely no faith in any police department. Most of them are staffed by jocks who couldn't find anything else to do after high school. If I'm going to be arrested and convicted of a crime, I want Stephen f'ing Hawking making presentations about my guilt, not Bluto the life failure.

wmoonfox: sinisterben: IDDQD

IDKFA
IDSPISPOPD

Oh god... I'm a sad, sad man...

BFG9000, FTW!

Man, all this legal mumbo jumbo is boring


/I

All this nonsense about the expense

This is one of those areas where so long as the Government isn't flying them first class and booking them in at the Presidential Suite I have no problem with the government spending money on this

tedbundee: Man, all this legal mumbo jumbo is boring


/I

goddamnit, that was supposed to be

/I(heart)ANAL

captain_heroic44: Loreweaver: Oh, I used the wrong analogy.

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

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

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

Except that in the scenario I outlined, you are requiring testimony from people who have no bearing on the case. It becomes an attempt by the defense to accuse random people, with no connection to the victim or the suspect, of specfically conspiring against his client. In effect, it is nothing more than a distraction.

This is like so many things that occur. At first there's a lot of whining and then, not so much and even later it's, Meh

Because let's face it #1 everyone makes errors. #2) some folks are malicious. #3) Not all Police officers, doctors, lawyers or judges are smart.

It might also have many positive un-intended consequences like more certainty for arrest, seeing cases for what they are and making spurious (harassing) arrests less attractive.

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

Disagrees:



"Rights, sir, human rights. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, a right to which my client has been denied. ... The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It's a machine, an information system. ... I repeat, I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the level of the machine. Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us."

Edited for truth.

DamnYankees: I wasn't aware that something made for the purpose of prosecution (which I might also contest is the 'purpose' of these tests) was an exception to the business records exception.

Then either you or your evidence professor sucks.

ossaFK: Once I get the job opportunities and the resources to do so, I am leaving this "free" country.

And where are you going to go to Mr. internet tough guy?

tedbundee: tedbundee: Man, all this legal mumbo jumbo is boring


/I

goddamnit, that was supposed to be

/I(heart)ANAL

Who's Anal?

OK, I'm really busy lately, so I'm sharing this billion-dollar-idea with anyone who has the energy to put it together: In-court testing devices. Drop in the sample, get the result. It should be a breeze for blood alcohol and other blood factors. Maybe a little more time consumming for DNA tests. The judge can be the lab tech - dropping the sample into the machine herself - thus eliminating the Sixth Amendment issue.

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

Disagrees:



"Rights, sir, human rights. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, a right to which my client has been denied. ... The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It's a machine, an information system. ... I repeat, I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the level of the machine. Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us."

And I just got a stinkin' photo speeding ticket with no court date to demand the camera system show up in court! Have these been successfully challenged yet?

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

This is EXACTLY like them. Liberal/conservative is a really stupid way to slice the SCOTUS. Better would be: formalist/pragmatist, originalist/other (recognizing that the Js themselves are not consistent).

Marcintosh: This is like so many things that occur. At first there's a lot of whining and then, not so much and even later it's, Meh

Because let's face it #1 everyone makes errors. #2) some folks are malicious. #3) Not all Police officers, doctors, lawyers or judges are smart.

It might also have many positive un-intended consequences like more certainty for arrest, seeing cases for what they are and making spurious (harassing) arrests less attractive.

Let's say you are a mindless drone just going about your job every day and you work, well for arguments sake, let's say 3 lab tests a day. Now, fast forward a year later (that's 780 cases later) do you really think the tech will remember the specifics of the case? They should already document any problems that arise and if they don't document them then I doubt they are going to bring them up in the trial. If they already document mistakes, then what is the point of calling them to the stand if nothing is documented as going wrong.

Those who cant teach , preach

actually that makes no sense to me but it sounded catchy

Strauuman: OK, I'm really busy lately, so I'm sharing this billion-dollar-idea with anyone who has the energy to put it together: In-court testing devices. Drop in the sample, get the result. It should be a breeze for blood alcohol and other blood factors. Maybe a little more time consumming for DNA tests. The judge can be the lab tech - dropping the sample into the machine herself - thus eliminating the Sixth Amendment issue.

Nice except the tests have to be preformed within 24 hours of accident in the case of dui, no just blood taken

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


Because in reality they aren't the 2-dimensional caricatures you've been told to believe they are. (OK, at least SCALIA isn't...)

Tricky Chicken: And I just got a stinkin' photo speeding ticket with no court date to demand the camera system show up in court! Have these been successfully challenged yet?

In as much as some towns have decided to stop using them due to the increased accidents caused by lowering the yellow time on stop lights to catch more people and increase revenue, yes, they have.

I am criminal defense attorney. I can state with all certainty that this case will result in the decrease in wrongful convictions and wrongful probation violations.

For example, pursuant to TCA 40-35-311 a person can have their probation violated based on a positive drug screen report that has an affidavit, by the "certifying technician", attach that states the sample was tested, the type of test preformed, a statement that it was most accurate test for that particular drug, and contains a declaration that all established procedures and protocols were followed.

If this is done correctly there is zero that a defense attorney can do to challenge the result. ZERO!

First the statute does not define a certifying technician as the person who actually preformed the test, so it can be an untrained person, who has been given the title of "certifying technical," who simply completes the paperwork so the lab result is admissible.

Judging from the affidavits I have seen it appears that it is simply the person who has been given the title and not the person who actually preformed the test. This raises the question of how that "certifying technician" would have any knowledge about whether the test preformed is actually the most accurate test for the particular drug, about whether protocols were actually followed, etc...

To make matters worse, I cannot cross examine the affidavit and ask questions about common substances that my client might have ingested that could cause false positives. For example, Advil and Aleve are known to cause a false positive for THC, Liver disease is known to cause false positives for a number of drugs, etc.... Without being able to cross examine the person who allegedly tested the evidence the judge doesn't have any knowledge about the test used could accurately eliminate this and other common false positive results.

Additionally, I cannot cross examine the affidavit to raise issues challenging whether the type of test preformed was the most accurate for the substance tested. For example, I maintain that the Carbon Isotope test (an incredibly expensive test) is better to test for many substances than the GC/MS test. However, without the lab tech there I cannot raise the issue unless I am able to hire a expert (the closest one who is two hours away) at costs two to three thousand dollars, which most of my client cannot afford.

You might also find it interested, when I have filed motions requesting that the lab technician in question either be required to appear in court or supplement their affidavit to specifically address the most accurate test issue and provide a list substances which could cause false positives, the District Attorney objected. However, during arguments I argued that the Court has been under a mistaken belief that the test results are 100% accurate when that is simply not the case. I further pointed out to the Court that over the counter medications can result in false positives, as noted the opinion in State v. Wade, 863 S.W2d 406 (Tenn. 1993), where the court noted that Advil could cause a false positive for THC. I also argued that the court, without this information, might be placing totally innocent persons in jail/prison due to the mistaken belief that the results are always 100% accurate, so the court needed to hera this evidence not just for my client's case but all similar cases that come before it. The judge ordered the state to have the lab technician present in court and set a new trial date. When I appeared for the next court date the lab tech was not present and the DA moved to dismiss the case. In other words, the DA wants to be able to continue presenting problematic evidence that simply cannot withstand a vigorous cross examination by a defense attorney. The DA knew that if the judge heard heard how unreliable the evidence was that they would have problems in all future cases, because if the judge ever heard the problems with the evidence the judge could take judicial notice of the problems making the DA's job much more difficult.

There is no doubt that evidence presented in the courts in Tennessee via affidavit has resulted in the incarceration of hundreds of innocent persons each and every year. I welcome the Supreme Court of the United States most recent opinion.

There are so many of these crime/justice stories, and there are always tons of them that are worth reading about (and some aren't posted since "not news" is always overloaded.

FARK has a "not news", "sports", "entertainment", etc tab to group these stories.

It's almost worth considering a "Not Justice" tab for this site to accommodate the demand (i.e. for the Iran stories, U.S. crap justice stories, etc).

I also agree that we should decriminalize drugs anyway, but still have a question about the charts. Maybe we are just better at catching criminals than those other countries?

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

More THIS stuff. Seriously, this is how they roll. if your attorney doesn't have an expert witness to go 'actually, this test could be read THAT way', you are boned.

Again, yes, I'm an expert witness that left a test lab
/all the good ones do
//lab money sucks
///so the ones left aren't that bright
////*puts on shades* YEEEEAAAAAAAH