Melendez-Diaz

UPDATE: As of January 12, 2010, the Virginia Court of Appeals has followed the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling in Briscoe that the defendant must subpoena a lab analyst to Court to testify to satisfy the newly enacted statutory scheme in response to Melendez-Diaz. To view the entire opinion of Farmer v. Commonwealth click here.


Scientific evidence is not infallible and lab analysts make mistakes.  In the summer of 2009 Justice Scalia, on behalf of the U.S. Supreme Court, penned the opinion styled Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. ____ (2009).  In its opinion the Supreme Court extended every criminal defendant’s Constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.  Specifically the Court guaranteed the defendant’s right to question and examine, in court, lab analysts and their conclusions regarding forensic evidence.  In the past, lab analysts were to merely submit an affidavit of their findings and the court would enter that affidavit into evidence as conclusive proof of its content and conclusions.  In Virginia today however, as a result of Melendez-Diaz each defendant now has the right, in drug and DUI cases, to demand that an analyst be present in court.  This means that during the trial the defendant’s attorney may examine and expose the lab analyst’s faulty conclusions regarding forensic evidence. Boone Beale’s attorneys makes full use of the opinion in Melendez-Diaz to create the most just and desirable result for clients. 

As Justice Scalia prudently put it, “Confrontation is designed to weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well.  Serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials.”  Boone Beale exists to protect your right to confrontation as well as every other Constitutional right inalienably yours when you step into the courtroom. 


Unfortunately, less than one year after the passage of this landmark Supreme Court opinion, the same court has accepted to hear argument in the case of Briscoe v. Virginia.  It appears that the four justices who dissented from the majority opinion in Melendez-Diaz have agreed to hear argument in Briscoe in an attempt to limit the impact Melendez-Diaz has had.  A transcript of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on January 11, 2010 can be found here. 


We certainly hope that the Court will not limit this landmark decision, but our fears are that they will start to take away some of the protections that we believe would have come about as a result of this historic case.


 

Free Online Case Evaluation

Contact Us





You are here: Home ›Melendez-Diaz
Site Map