[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?

[rednesss]

I don't see a problem here especially if you've read anything about the Houston Crime Lab scandal. People should not be spending decades in prison based upon the false assumption that if it's on a lab report it's King James Bible Gospel Truth.

I think forensic crime labs should not be all that cozy with the police or the prosecutor's office or anyone, they should be autonomous. They should be in the business of science and fact. Being chummy with the police gives me the impression of impropriety.