In a recent editorial, The Washington Times tried to make the case that the recent US Supreme Court decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts is n impediment to crime fighting. And if they prioritize orderly, assembly-line convictions over fairness, justice, and the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, then they may be correct on that point.
The ruling makes it a requirement that for forensic evidence in criminal cases, the technician who analyzed the results must be in court to explain and defend this evidence, if requested by the defense. This situation comes up frequently in DUI breathalyzer analysis and drug chemical analysis in drug possession cases.
Before this ruling, a person could be convicted largely on the basis of a document alone. The forensic evidence in the documents was automatically presented as incontrovertible fact. But the Supreme Court determined that the defendant should have a reasonable chance to challenge any evidence against him or her.
The editorial at the Washington Times states that crime labs are “hobbled” by this decision. There is indeed an additional burden on the state to provide these experts for testimony, if requested by the defense.
But Constitutional protections like this were designed to be inconvenient to for the government. That’s the whole point. It shouldn’t be easy and automatic to take away someone’s freedom and liberty, and convict them of a crime by fiat.
The editorial even goes so far as to state that “If the technicians don’t appear, even guilty defendants can go free”. That is incorrect. No guilty people are going to go free, because there is such a thing as innocent until proven guilty. If they are not convicted, they they are not guilty.
It’s a pretty simple concept that the writer doesn’t seem to grasp.
About David Matson