[rednesss]

Hmmm, don’t we have a Constitutional right to confront all accusers??? Why isn’t this a 9-0 decision??? Why should a lab rat be exempt from having to defend their accusations???

[Lurking Libertarian]

Hmmm, don’t we have a Constitutional right to confront all accusers??? Why isn’t this a 9-0 decision???

Because Roberts and Alito think the word "conservative" means "the police always win."

[Rockingham]

The issue is not as straightforward as it may seem. The previous rule was that as part of the defense case, the defense could subpoena lab techs and examine them on their work.

Now, because lab reports are subject to the confrontation clause, the techs and analysts who prepare them must appear at trial as part of the prosecution case. This increases the costs and burdens of forensic evidence and gives the defense a greater opportunity to gain an acquittal by making the nerds in the crime lab look bad or are unavailable to testify.

Other issues remain. Will the prosecution have to produce witnesses as to the manufacture, calibration, maintenance, and repair of their lab equipment so as to show it to be reliable? Will chemical reagents have to be proven up in a similar fashion?

[RobRoy]

>>Hmmm, don’t we have a Constitutional right to confront all accusers??? Why isn’t this a 9-0 decision??? Why should a lab rat be exempt from having to defend their accusations???<<

Very good question. I was wondering exactly the same thing. Heck, they got to cross examine the “lab rat” even in My Cousin Vinney!