Given the numerous problems with crime lab technicians faking evidence in recent years I’d say I agree with this decision since the veracity and capabilitiy of the lab techs has been at issue in numerous successful appellate actions.
Maybe they can raise the blood level standard to what it used to be, to keep out all the frivolous trials.
They could also just go back to Texas rules, where either you were driving recklessly, or you weren’t, the drinking, or non drinking was not the point.
There was a time when this might bother me, but with TSA, Obama becoming our little dictator, etc. I applaud this decision. I’m tired of secrets being maintained in the name of National Security. I no longer trust my government as it presently exists.
just think what this does to the traffic cameras!
not just ANY representative from the traffic camera company will do. you have to have IN court during trial the actual exact person who looked at the picture and analized the image and issued the citation.
no more guilty via representative witness.
That’s a good ruling. I’m surprised.
It’s a burden for a state expert witness to testify? Bunk.
That’s like saying it’s a burden for cops to testify. Total bunk. Glad I am on the same side as Scalia on this one.
It appears as though the Supreme Court is ready to acknowledge that there is such a document as the Constitution and that its words still hold their original meaning.
There may be hope yet. Let’s see if they read the constitution before they rule on Obamacare.
This is going to mean the States will have to hire a bunch more lab technicians, as they will be spending a lot of their time in court.
I believe in my state it will mean lab technicians traveling great distances to go to court.
In NY you get arrested for DWI and DWI % of BAC.
They will just find a way to convict you on the officers observations using cameras now.
Good decision. The tech must have the credentials and testify under penalty of perjury. The defense is free to question the tech’s expertise and the accuracy of the test employed.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Is the information provided testifying (being used against) him?
If so, then he must have the right to confront the evidence, as well as the person presenting it.
Good decision.
“It is not clear, however, whether most defendants will demand that lab technicians testify at their trials.”
Of course they will. Every one of them. Then when the tech doesn’t show up the case will be dumped. I agree that the court made the right decision, but it will definitely choke the court system to death. Or the DUI part of the criminal justice system will be a charge of the past in states where a blood draw rather than a breath test is the norm.
Were they dissenting because it went too far or it did not go far enough?
What a bizarre mix making up the majority. This seems to be an obvious decision. Amazing to me that it was only 5-4.
Sounds like the right decision to me. I’d be interested to read Roberts and Alito’s reasoning for their dissent. Off the top it sounds like the sort of thing they would’ve agreed with.
>> Interesting line-up of Justices.
Indeed. Glad Scalia and Thomas were on board.
While I imagine most cited for drunk driving were probably drunk at the time, this automated process of charging and prosecuting drivers is way out of line.
No, I don’t have the answers...
I agree with the decision. DUI cases are no different from any other criminal charge so the charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m sure there is a lot of incompetence in criminal labs.
“unusual coalition”? Barf, conservative justices fight hard for WRITTEN constitutional rights, not made up ones.