Posted on 06/24/2011 5:04:06 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
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.~ longtermmemmory
awsome!!
I think you are probably right about the process. Until they change it, though, that tech and that hospital should know what they’re committing themselves to by accepting the testing job.
Probably not much. Tickets issued from traffic cameras are a civil, not a criminal, matter.
More specifically, it would not apply at all because the decision only applies to criminal, not civil, trials. The decision was based on the 6th amendment’s Confrontation Clause which applies to criminal prosecutions .I browsed the decision and it appears to be confined to criminal, not civil, law.
JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to all but Part IV and footnote 6. The Confrontation Clause, the opinion concludes, does not permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification, made in order to prove a fact at a criminal trial, through the in-court testimony of an analyst who did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the certification.
The accused’s right is to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.
“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.
Probably won’t apply. Traffic tickets are usually civil. DUI is criminal.
Unfortunately, some or many states (not sure how many) have claimed that red light camera citations are a civil matter, on the idiot notion that they are dealing with property (the car) and not a person (the driver).
Unfortunately, traffic camera tickets usually fall into the civil court arena instead of criminal court. They've basically bypassed the criminal aspects of traffic violations in favor of revenue enhancement. Anyway, I don't think that this ruling has an effect on such situations. May be wrong though.
Were they dissenting because it went too far or it did not go far enough?
Yep. That is the problem. Plus when they are sitting in the court rooom for hours someone else has to be called in on their day off to work. It is a BIG hassle.
Right, I don’t think we are disagreeing. I am not necessarily saying there’s any bias or screwups either, I am just for the ability of the defendant to see their accusers or expert witnesses against them, in court. Especially so if they are state workers or government workers or contracted by the state.
There’s always a chance a lab is being run poorly or there is some hack coroner running a shoddy ship. In many places a coroner doesn’t have to be a doctor and only gets the job because they win an election. Stuff like that. Or finding a private lab contracted to do work is doing crap work to cut costs or has a bunch of people not qualified to do work, doing their work.
What a bizarre mix making up the majority. This seems to be an obvious decision. Amazing to me that it was only 5-4.
I am an attorney as well. The older I get, the more liberal I get on crim law matters. I know some freepers will not agree, but the govt needs to be checked.
I don’t think that makes you or us liberal.
My dream justice protects the rights of the accused, and rigidly holds the line on federalism and the commerce clause.
Thomas has the latter down pat. Scalia the former. So a hybrid of the two would be just right.
The Raisch case really soured me on Scalia, but he is still very good 90% of the time.
Thomas has never seen an illegal search, so I don’t count on him in these criminal procedure cases.
I was pleased to see he joined this opinion.
I guess Roberts and Alito will join the club after they finally see the out of control police state at it’s worst.
Hopefully it’s not too late by then.
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...
>> The older I get, the more liberal I get on crim law matters.
Preferably Libertarian than Liberal.
True.
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.
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.