Jump To Navigation

Supreme Court rules use of Lab Report Violates Confrontation Clause


September 11, 2009
Topic: Criminal

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled recently in the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts that failure to call the creator of a report in criminal cases, in most instances, is reversable error.  Under the Supreme Court's previous decision in Crawford, witness's testimony against a defendant is inadmissible unless the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable, the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. The certificates that were sought to be admitted in this case were affidavits and triggered Confrontation Clause protections. The government's arguments that the reports themselves were not "accusatory" witnesses, were "nearly contemporaneous" with their observations, or that witnesses who testify regarding facts other than those observed at the crime scene are exempt from confrontation. The Court also said that the absence of interrogation was irrelevant, that a witness who volunteers his testimony is no less a witness for Sixth Amendment purposes. Finally, the affidavits could not be traditional official or business records.

This ruling confirms what we have been arguing in Florida state courts, particularly in Florida Drug and DUI criminal cases that the analyst, be it breath or drug analyst, have to be compelled to come to court


Certified | The Florida Bar | Criminal Trial Law

Arnold Law Firm, LLC

6279 Dupont Station Court
Jacksonville, FL 32217

Phone: 904-731-3800
Fax: 904-731-3807

E-mail Us | Map & Directions