"Last week, the US Supreme Court issued a significant ruling, one that upholds the right of a criminal defendant, during trial, to confront the analyst who prepared a forensic report if the prosecution plans to use that report as evidence. ... But many prosecutors, and the court minority, complained that it would place undue strain on forensic analysts and prosecutors", Editorial at the Houston Chronicle, 1 July 2009.
This case should have been another no-brainer, 9-0 decision. The sixth amendment gives us this right. What copy of the constitution do Kennedy, Roberts, Breyer and Alito have? Was the page with the sixth amendment missing? Prosecutors and forensic analysts lack of integrity used to amaze me. It hasn't in years. What they are really afraid of is: "The CSI Effect", jurors being able to spot faulty science and poor evidence handling. Jurors looking at tests performed and wondering why other tests weren't. Imagine, our Supremes came up with Daubert in 1993. What a joke.
4 comments:
Interesting coalition. I would never have expected those four to be the four against defendants' rights.
WCV:
Roberts and Alito? The only defendants whose rights they favor are corporate defendants.
I would have put Scalia and Thomas as more likely than Alito.
And what's up with Breyer?
It would be interesting to understand their individual logic, but I don't have time to read the opinions.
I wonder if CSI and Law and Order cause people to be more interested in judicial proceedings and how there can be errors...
And the Supremes... just people... sometimes very right and other times less right... and sometimes just corporatists... like the Chief.
Post a Comment