Dracolich: 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).

I don't get this statement... So are you saying that a lab tech is going to remember the details of every sample he or she tests and will be able to testify that everything was done correctly? The point of having the lab tech there and not just someone who knows about these kinds of tests is to give the specifics of that particular sample and what happened with that sample. As I said above, if they don't document any mistakes then they aren't going to be bringing them up a few months or a few years later in the trial so what is the point of having them there when nothing is documented as going wrong?

vertiaset: give me doughnuts

"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.



You mean edited out of ignorance and prejudice.


Nah, he makes a good point. "Thou shalt not murder" didn't apply to all humans, just all followers of their faith... not their slaves and certainly not their enemies (read the other books for how they treated them, spoiler: it's not cheerful). True those followers were humans, but I believe the conversation here is about base rights, not those of a sub-group.

Even the new testament doesn't do anything for human rights. Saying that it's a good idea to help others isn't giving them rights. Telling people not to do bad things is also not giving their would-be victim rights (do unto others bit).

Loreweaver: 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...

You must have missed my earlier posting. The E.R. nurse that administers the rape kit is already required to testify as to procedures, chain of evidence, etc.

JeffreyScott: 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.

Heh, there is a very small chance that you've hired me before. :)

Tennessee

Or not. Still, this guy is right.

/i post too much in these crime evidence threads

KickerOfElvis: 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?

And amazingly, that astounding ability to catch criminals ramped up at exactly the same time the "War on Drugs" started!

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this ruling, but I don't think people should just arbitrarily dismiss this as "no big imposition on the lab technicians", because it is. It seems like defense lawyers should have have to show some proof that the lab tech might have screwed up before calling them (i.e. all records of work done by that technician should be available to the defendants, results of controls, etc.). That's like calling the manufacturer of a radar gun, and asking them "Do you personally remember certifying that this radar gun is accurate?" If the tech can't answer yes, it brings in doubt. And in this day in age, jurors will look for the 00.01% uncertainty in a testimony to let someone off (not just marijuana users, but murderers and rapists as well).

So yeah, just seriously consider that for a second.

Marcus Aurelius: Let's hope this puts a nail into the coffin of red light and speed cameras at the same time.

So much THIS, so little time

Ryan2065: Now, fast forward a year later (that's 780 cases later) do you really think the tech will remember the specifics of the case?

07-24-2007
Case # 1,234,212
Victim: White female
Name: Unknown
Age: 20-25


10:47- I sneezed, but turned my head exactly 87 degress to the right, covered my nose and mouth. Involuntary muscles caused my eyes to close, that plus the angle of my head meant that the decedant was out of sight for 2-3 seconds. Changed gloves.

10:52- My wife changed detergent, and I believe the new formulation is a skin irritant which is causing my scrotum irritation. I just scratched my balls. Decedant remained in sight. Changed gloves.

10:58- Descedant was a healthy blond woman. Evidence of high quality plastic surgery found in her perfect breasts. Identifying marks: Tattoo on the small of her back, and another on her ankle. Multiple ear piercings, as well as her tongue and clitoral hood. Sctoru still itches. Body not leaving my sight. Gloves changed.

11:07- Stil visually examining the body. She was very attractive. Oops. Changed gloves.

vertiaset: give me doughnuts

"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.



You mean edited out of ignorance and prejudice.

No, I was right. Your book has no place in a court of law.

JeffreyScott

You don't address why we need the lab tech who worked the sample to testify in the trial. Have the lab tech's name and his credentials stapled to each case he works and then call him if there is a problem with the results or his credentials that you want to argue over. Otherwise, why couldn't anyone who knows about this stuff testify about the different tests and all that jazz?

give me doughnuts: vertiaset: give me doughnuts

Edited for truth.

You mean edited out of ignorance and prejudice.

No, I was right. Your book has no place in a court of law.

Dudes, it's STAR TREK!

griffer: give me doughnuts: vertiaset: give me doughnuts

Edited for truth.

You mean edited out of ignorance and prejudice.

No, I was right. Your book has no place in a court of law.

Dudes, it's STAR TREK!

Fark will turn anything into a religion thread.

You bunch of hippies eschewing the greatness of fewer drug addicts getting prosecuted for breaking the law will change your turn when your famillies end up dead because some drug addict gets off and inevitably escalates his criminal activity to murder. You may not think that smoking pot is all that illegal but its a proven gateway drug to things like herione. All of that leads to stealing which leads to murdering and worse.

Most of those druggers get a benefit from being in jail, they get rehibilitated and taught how not be a drain on society. Now they won't have that, they will jus tprogress to murder as studies have shown. Way to go SCOTUS! You've doomed all the hippies.

pd771: griffer: give me doughnuts: vertiaset: give me doughnuts

Edited for truth.

You mean edited out of ignorance and prejudice.

No, I was right. Your book has no place in a court of law.

Dudes, it's STAR TREK!

Fark will turn anything into a religion thread.

Holy shiat! Jesus Christ on a cracker!

give me doughnuts: vertiaset: give me doughnuts

"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.



You mean edited out of ignorance and prejudice.

No, I was right. Your book has no place in a court of law.

Pick your battles? You're arguing with a Star Trek quote in reference being able to yell at a camera in a court room.

At least pick a thread related to christians r dum, there are plenty.

And yea dude, i'm an atheist too, so don't go putting on anti-crusader war paint.

ellesar: when your famillies end up dead

0/10

An easy solution to this "crisis" would be for the states (and feds) to decriminalize drug use and possession. Treat all drugs like alcohol, and there would be far fewer crimes to even prosecute, much less worry about lab techs testifying in.

/I don't user either one
//Also don't see a distinction

DECMATH: 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?

You are mistaken (or at least you're confusing two completely different issues).

The right not to incriminate yourself, and the right to confront the witnesses against you, are both in the same amendment, but they're completely different rights. A witness is someone who provides testimony. So the definition of "testimony" is very important in deciding exactly who is a "witness" (and therefore, who you have a right to confront). But your urine, your footprints, your hair, your DNA, and so on are not "testimony" or "witnesses", just like the radar gun or the speed limit sign are not "witnesses" and do not give "testimony". You cannot cross-examine a vial of urine.

If a bodily sample is taken against your will, that potentially violates yet another right -- your right not to be unreasonably searched. And you can present that argument in court; if the judge agrees with you, the urine will be suppressed.

And in order for that vial of urine to be effectively used against you, somebody has to say "Here is how the urine was collected, and here is how I know that it came from the defendant." That person is most definitely a witness offering testimony, and you can cross-examine that person.

But it's long since been decided that physical evidence of the defendant's identity or actions -- DNA samples, footprints, etc. -- are not "self-incrimination". Nothing in the recent Supreme Court decisions has changed this.

Korovyov: happydude45: Scalia follows the law, period. He's afor great justice.

/sorry

What you say?

ANYBODY WHO THINKS THIS RULING IS A BAD ONE
NEEDS TO (RE)READ THIS POST. PERIOD.



JeffreyScott: 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 t ...

estimony could put you in jail for DECADES.

Seems like a small price to pay.

rikdanger: Get me the Batman.

Batman's a scientist.

ellesar: You bunch of hippies eschewing the greatness of fewer drug addicts getting prosecuted for breaking the law will change your turn when your famillies end up dead because some drug addict gets off and inevitably escalates his criminal activity to murder. You may not think that smoking pot is all that illegal but its a proven gateway drug to things like herione. All of that leads to stealing which leads to murdering and worse.

Most of those druggers get a benefit from being in jail, they get rehibilitated and taught how not be a drain on society. Now they won't have that, they will jus tprogress to murder as studies have shown. Way to go SCOTUS! You've doomed all the hippies.

I too am addicted to women who are involved in the act of saving someones life. It is a rough fix man

griffer: give me doughnuts: vertiaset: give me doughnuts

Edited for truth.

You mean edited out of ignorance and prejudice.

No, I was right. Your book has no place in a court of law.

Dudes, it's STAR TREK!

My statement will be just as relevant four hundred years from now. Even more so since they had gone out into the galaxy and met all sorts of folks who no frakkin idea who this Jesus person was. Human (and other sentients) rights should not be based on the maunderings of some nomadic herders that were just trying to keep their Bronze Age thunder-god from smiting them.

/discussing shows made in the past that were about the future makes for interesting grammatical inversions.

Wow...
this is pretty far reaching and undermines the entire legal system.

Sir, I'd like to bring the authors of the constitution to the stand. I stand accused of violating the constitution, and if that's a crime, I need to face my accusers.

Why not be satisfied with like a notorized and sworn document stating that all standard proceedures were followed according to whatever documents govern that particular item, and then have a resident expert on hand in-court to field questions regarding that.

If 10 people were involved in stages of testing an unknown substance, all ten people need to stop work and travel to the court and spend hours/days waiting to see if the case date might be postponed?

If I steal $100 dollar bill, I'd like to call the currency printing people to the stand.. ALL OF THEM, or you can't prove this is a real $100 dollar bill to begin with, and all I've stolen is a piece of paper that's been printed on with no intrinsic value beyond the cost of materials used to make it. Or are you a scientist that can prove that this is a real $50 bill?

How about this.. As evidence is approved for use in a case, the defense may hire a team to disprove that piece of evidence. (ie- "that's not cocaine") If they are successful, or able to establish a reasonable doubt, THEN you'd be required to call in the folks that originally tested the material if you still wanted to push the issue.

I know it's innocent until proven guilty, and this places the burden of DISPROOF on the defense, but isn't that how it is anyways?

Someone has proven that the item in question is indeed cocaine, thereby proving it. It's not cocaine? prove it.

If I have a substance in-front of me that I'm testing, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm merely identifying the material in-front of me.

Ryan2065: Dracolich: 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).

I don't get this statement... So are you saying that a lab tech is going to remember the details of every sample he or she tests and will be able to testify that everything was done correctly? The point of having the lab tech there and not just someone who knows about these kinds of tests is to give the specifics of that particular sample and what happened with that sample. As I said above, if they don't document any mistakes then they aren't going to be bringing them up a few months or a few years later in the trial so what is the point of having them there when nothing is documented as going wrong?

Nah, it's not about the details of that sample in particular unless it's of particularly strange nature. It's about:
-how those tests are conducted
-what the uncertainty of the test is
-what things lead to false positives
-who accredited their expertise

Unfortunately, because of that conflict of interest thing several people have mentioned, it may even be just to get them under oath so that they had no incentives to falsify their results.

It may seem like anyone with knowledge of the testing procedure can answer these things, but what if the person gets one wrong? Did they do it wrong? If they don't know what they're doing, can we call it evidence or should it be redone?

Like I said before though, lawyers shouldn't be presenting a single number from a test. It's a distribution of where the answer might be and there had better be someone who knows about it to explain it, and this may as well be the person who did the test because there are other questions they should answer.

Veloxus: I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this ruling, but I don't think people should just arbitrarily dismiss this as "no big imposition on the lab technicians", because it is. It seems like defense lawyers should have have to show some proof that the lab tech might have screwed up before calling them (i.e. all records of work done by that technician should be available to the defendants, results of controls, etc.). That's like calling the manufacturer of a radar gun, and asking them "Do you personally remember certifying that this radar gun is accurate?" If the tech can't answer yes, it brings in doubt. And in this day in age, jurors will look for the 00.01% uncertainty in a testimony to let someone off (not just marijuana users, but murderers and rapists as well).

So yeah, just seriously consider that for a second.

Ok, I considered it. still......

I don't care.

We are talking about convicting a human of a crime and locking them in a cage for years. Boo-freakin-hoo if this inconvenient for technicians or adds cost to the courts. Hire more techs. Hire people who value the rule of law enough to tolerate the inconvenience. Fire the tech too lame to make a good case in court.

SpectroBoy: estimony could put you in jail for DECADES.

Seems like a small price to pay.

So you agree with him and believe the lab tech is needed if the only thing the defense wants to know is general information about the types of tests you can perform? That is completely unreasonable. Just make it so they can only enter in the evidence if they have someone to explain about the test and answer any other questions the defense has.

Sure if there is a question on how the sample was handled the tech might remember the random test he did months ago, but otherwise, why force that lab tech to be there?

OtherLittleGuy: rikdanger: Get me the Batman.

Batman's a scientist.

I just can't see him dangling a guy off the top of of building and answering the guy's panicked, "What are you?" with "I'm a scientist!"

It just doesn't have the same kick.

"Back off,man. I'm a scientist!" Now that works a little better.

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.

I like your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

\fewer victimless crimes through the legal system = GOOD

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.

This thread has gotten too big for me to follow, but I had to jump on this one too.

If the tech were to have a tragic accident on the way to the courthouse -- and if there were any evidence connecting that "accident" to the trial -- then not only would the defendant now be looking at a murder charge, but no, this would not stop the evidence from being introduced. The Supreme Court made it very clear that "forfeiture by wrongdoing" still applies. If someone is going to testify against you, then you have the right to cross-examine them. But if you prevent that person from testifying against you by some wrongful act -- by killing them, by giving them money and putting them on a plane out of the country, etc. -- then the prosecution can introduce the evidence that that person planned on giving against you, and you cannot complain about lack of cross-examination, because you forfeited that right.

(Forfeiture by wrongdoing applies to lots of other rights as well. To give the classic example, you have the right to an attorney; but if you punch your attorney in the face in the middle of the trial, and he won't represent you anymore, then the fact that you no longer have an attorney is your own fault.)

ellesar: You bunch of hippies eschewing the greatness of fewer drug addicts getting prosecuted for breaking the law will change your turn when your famillies end up dead because some drug addict gets off and inevitably escalates his criminal activity to murder. You may not think that smoking pot is all that illegal but its a proven gateway drug to things like herione. All of that leads to stealing which leads to murdering and worse.

Most of those druggers get a benefit from being in jail, they get rehibilitated and taught how not be a drain on society. Now they won't have that, they will jus tprogress to murder as studies have shown. Way to go SCOTUS! You've doomed all the hippies.

Not bad. You stayed in character and seemed to be making a point of sorts. I give it a 7/10 on the trollometer.

Firemarshalbill: give me doughnuts: vertiaset: give me doughnuts

"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.



You mean edited out of ignorance and prejudice.

No, I was right. Your book has no place in a court of law.

Pick your battles? You're arguing with a Star Trek quote in reference being able to yell at a camera in a court room.

At least pick a thread related to christians r dum, there are plenty.

And yea dude, i'm an atheist too, so don't go putting on anti-crusader war paint.

Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction, but I've been in most of the circuit and district courthouses in Kentucky, and far too many of them had the Ten Commandments posted prominently behind the judge. Always got my shorts in a wad whenever I saw it.

You know... people whine, but there's no reason in the world that an expert witness couldn't be teleconferenced in, even in rural areas. These days conferencing requires very little bandwidth and there are low-cost conference suites that practically any county courthouse can afford.

DamnYankees: Lawyer thread:

Scalia's decision makes no sense to me. How is this not a business records exemption?

Um, because it's not a business record, but rather a recording of a test done out of the court's sight? It's one thing for an accountant to write down +$3. It's another for a technician to write down the conclusions of a test and to then have that presented as incontravertible truth.

PawisBetlog: 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.

I like your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

\fewer victimless crimes through the legal system = GOOD

More violent criminals released due to scheduling problems with the lab techs = BAD.

give me doughnuts: My statement will be just as relevant four hundred years from now. Even more so since they had gone out into the galaxy and met all sorts of folks who no frakkin idea who this Jesus person was. Human (and other sentients) rights should not be based on the maunderings of some nomadic herders that were just trying to keep their Bronze Age thunder-god from smiting them.

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.

Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!

FTA: In Prince George's County, lab analysts testify regularly, but the volume of cases is so great that "we still are not able to process all the drug cases," State's Attorney Glenn F. Ivey said. "There's a triage going on in court cases. Some marijuana cases don't get tested, and we end up throwing them out."

STFU Glenn F. Ivey, you cock. The Constitution doesn't exist to make prohibition and imprisonment of citizens convenient for the government.

Choke the farking system with a full trial on every dime-bag case until they stop this drug war nonsense.

The Puzzler: Everytime I see the acronym SCOTUS, I read it as SCROTUM:
Supreme Court's Retired Old Tired Ugly Men.

I always read it as "Durrrrrrrrrrr", because in reality it's the United States Supreme Court, or USSC.

Dracolich: Nah, it's not about the details of that sample in particular unless it's of particularly strange nature. It's about:
-how those tests are conducted
-what the uncertainty of the test is
-what things lead to false positives
-who accredited their expertise

I'm going to ignore your first three points since they don't actually go against what I've said and just look at the last one. You are saying that the lab tech needs to travel, sometimes 10 hours to go to one trial just to talk about the training he received? Can't they just explain and if the defense still wants to question him, then have him do the drive?

Dracolich: Unfortunately, because of that conflict of interest thing several people have mentioned, it may even be just to get them under oath so that they had no incentives to falsify their results.

I thought we already had laws against falsifying evidence. But I'm sure the people willing to break those laws would just hate to break perjury laws and would love to bring charges against themselves and lose their job. That's what logically would happen...

Dracolich: Like I said before though, lawyers shouldn't be presenting a single number from a test. It's a distribution of where the answer might be and there had better be someone who knows about it to explain it, and this may as well be the person who did the test because there are other questions they should answer.

I've been saying that if the defense wants to question the person who did the lab tests then by all means let them do that, but why require the lab guy to come in and give general information about the results when the defense doesn't even want to question him? It's a waste of resources and you haven't addressed that point yet.

Eclectic Hedonist: You know... people whine, but there's no reason in the world that an expert witness couldn't be teleconferenced in, even in rural areas. These days conferencing requires very little bandwidth and there are low-cost conference suites that practically any county courthouse can afford.

Anyone know how this works with the whole "under oath" thing? I'm guessing that's part of the problem.

NuttierThanEver: fnorgby: is that just me, or can you all sort of hear Ode to Joy off in the distance?

"enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them" is enough for me. The fact that it means fewer potheads going to jail is just the sweet, delicious icing.

it also means fewer rapists and serial killers too.

A joyous day for all!

NuttierThanEver: benlonghair: NuttierThanEver: Just another example of how the legal system continues to fark it up when dealing with science.

What? This is a great ruling. Instead of juries being told that "this is science, that makes it true," defense attorneys can cross examine the tech who will explain that these tests aren't necessarily perfect.

You can present the data on the sensitivity and specificity of a test and then present data that sheds light on the risks of false positives of any tests without having to demand that the tech who put the test in a machine 1000 miles away be present to question directly. You want to cross examine the tech that collected the samples? Fine, that makes sense.


Actually, I don't think it would be that easy to present that evidence. Who would do that, except for a technician proficient in administering the test?

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."

The main advantage the prosecution has is that the overwhelming majority of people being prosecuted are incredibly guilty and the evidence supports that guilt. The defense has the advantage of not having to present any evidence, of not being required to testify, of spousal privledge, attorney-client privledge, doctor-patient privledge, etc., not to mention the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional amendments that protect the defendant's rights. All of these are advantages that the State does not possess, which the defendant does.

The defendant can require a speedy trial, determine whether or not to have a jury (the State will not request a jury trial in most cases if the defendant waives one), appeal the verdict, and get evidence suppressed (far less likely for the prosecution to get the same). Prosecutors are required to seek justice rather than a conviction (of course some lose sight of this), while a defense attorney is only required not to perpetrate a fraud on the Court, leaving them free to use practically any means to get their client off. The prosecution needs a unanimous verdict to convict, the defense needs only a single hold-out.

Rulings often favor the defendant to prevent an appeal or any possibility that a defendant is prejudiced. Defense counsel can fall back on "the defendant should not be punished for my failure" ineffective assistance of counsel argument. If the defense fails to turn over documents to the government, the defense (probably) can't use them at trial. If the government fails to turn over documents to the defense it is a mistrial. The government has far more discovery obligations than does the defense. The government has to provide lists and copies of exhibits and witnesses, not so much for the defense. And the list goes on . . .


For the most part, this is all as it should be, but I fail to see how the prosecution really has all of the advantages. In many cases they probably have more resources at their disposal than does the defense, but the defense does not have to present a case or prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. While there are some people who will be inclined to convict anyone who is arrested, only one person has to be pro-defense in order to sink the charges.

I am fine with this ruling (no effect on federal proscutions anyway), but I don't think it will have the effect(s) many here hope for. States will just use the same number of technicians to do the same number of cases and testify as well. Technicians will be more rushed and make more mistakes. Defense counsel will need to know what got screwed up in order to bring it to light. If lab technicians are actually under orders to make up stuff for the prosecution (appalling), why wouldn't they just lie about it in Court as well?

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.

Well keeping innocent people in prison is prohibitively expensive. Turning non-violent offenders from taxpayers to wards of the state is prohibitively expensive.

Prosecutors have managed to replace most of the feet on the ground evidence gathering with a clipboard and a techie mill. And they have used it to generate prosecutions out the wazzoo on little to no evidence except what was is now technically possible to provide.

I see this ruling as a blow to the police state. There is now a cost associated with trying a case. "Real" cases won't be affected. But the bullshiat cases will fall by the wayside.

Dead-Guy: Why not be satisfied with like a notorized and sworn document stating that all standard proceedures were followed according to whatever documents govern that particular item, and then have a resident expert on hand in-court to field questions regarding that.

I would support that idea. And all you have to do is pass a constitutional amendment.

As the justices said in Crawford, there are lots of perfectly good reasons that we can come up with for why testimonial-type stuff should be allowed, and lots of justifications we can some up with for why a particular type of evidence is sufficiently reliable that it should be allowed. The trouble is that the folks who wrote the Constitution had seen all the ways in which people had been railroaded in legal proceedings through the use of evidence and testimony that couldn't be effectively challenged or refuted. So the founding founders said 'We're not going to let judges or legislators make decisions on what sort of testimony is reliable; we're going to pick a method that we're satisfied with for evaluating the reliability of testimony -- cross-examination -- and we're going to insist that it be used.'

ChadM89: The Puzzler: Everytime I see the acronym SCOTUS, I read it as SCROTUM:
Supreme Court's Retired Old Tired Ugly Men.

I always read it as "Durrrrrrrrrrr", because in reality it's the United States Supreme Court, or USSC.

I always thought that was the United States Sentencing Commission
Link

The official title of the Supreme Court is "Supreme Court of the United States." Though they might have gotten their own name wrong on their website.
Link

NuttierThanEver: Just another example of how the legal system continues to fark it up when dealing with science.

I think you might be trolling, but that's pretty naive... requiring a lab scientist to be in the courtroom makes it so that counsel can be given the opportunity to question/understand the limits of the science, and how just much the evidence proves or doesn't prove.

Many lawyers depend on the jury, judge and opposing side not knowing exactly where the line is drawn to win their case... this is a shameful practice.

Just because you find a viable hair sample in a room doesn't mean someone was there recently.
Just because your gas chromomatagraph found traces of arsenic, doesn't mean its significant.

If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit.

Etc etc...

DamnYankees: kronicfeld: Holding the state to its burden isn't "fishing."

What a nice little platitude. Come on now - that's not an argument.

Actually yes it is. That's the way it works you see. The state has to prove its case. The defense has does not and in fact the defense must make every effort to defeat the state's case. Calling in a technician to challenge the validity of the technician's test should have been good practice to start with.

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


/I

goddamnit, that was supposed to be

/I(heart)ANAL

Who's Anal?

Who's on first?
4th base

Blasphemy!