Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court puts extra burden on crime labs
The Los Angeles Times ^ | June 24, 2011 | David G. Savage

Posted on 06/24/2011 5:04:06 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian

The Supreme Court on Thursday put an extra burden on crime labs, declaring that a man accused of drunken driving has the right to demand that a lab technician testify in person about a blood test that showed he was impaired.

The 5-4 decision was the latest to extend the reach of a defendant's constitutional right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." And once again, the outcome was driven by an unusual coalition of conservative and liberal justices.

Two years ago, the court said a crime lab technician was a witness for the prosecution and, therefore, must be available to testify. In Thursday's decision, the court went a step further, saying it will not suffice to send any technician or lab analyst who can explain the testing. Rather, the prosecution must supply the same technician who conducted the blood test and signed to certify the result.

"We hold that surrogate testimony … does not meet the constitutional requirement," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court majority, which also included Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The Constitution does not permit shortcuts, the court said, and in many cases, a crime lab report is the prosecution's strongest evidence.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: confrontation; crimelabs; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 last
To: P-Marlowe; Lurking Libertarian; wmfights; xzins; blue-duncan
Let’s see if they read the constitution before they rule on Obamacare.

Amen. Once they find the mandate unconstitutional (or anything else) THAT'S when Scott Brown's election will really mean something. He can vote RINO all day long but he still could be the linchpin that brings Obamacare down.

41 posted on 06/27/2011 12:27:43 AM PDT by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

“unusual coalition”? Barf, conservative justices fight hard for WRITTEN constitutional rights, not made up ones.


42 posted on 06/27/2011 7:24:32 AM PDT by stan_sipple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple
“unusual coalition”? Barf, conservative justices fight hard for WRITTEN constitutional rights, not made up ones.

It was an unusual coalition because some of the Court's conservatives were in the majority and some in the dissent, and the same for the Court's liberals.

43 posted on 06/27/2011 2:33:34 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson