Justices Rule Crime Analysts Must Testify on Lab Results.

elleng

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-25-09 10:56 PM
Original message

Justices Rule Crime Analysts Must Testify on Lab Results.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, scoffed at those �back-of-the-envelope calculations.�

In any event, he added, the court is not entitled to ignore even an unwise constitutional command for reasons of convenience.

�The confrontation clause may make the prosecution of criminals more burdensome, but that is equally true of the right to trial by jury and the privilege against self-incrimination,� Justice Scalia wrote.

�The sky will not fall after today�s decision,� he added.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/26lab.html?_r=1&hp

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

paulsby

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-25-09 11:00 PM
Response to Original message

1. i agree

fwiw, the war on domestic violence has also upped the incidents of defendants not being able to cross examine their accusers. that's about as basic a constitutional right there is. the right to confront those presenting evidence agaisnt you.

there's also an overreliance on "experts" and uncritical acceptance of (so called) scientific evidence. scientific method is ONLY as good as the practitioner gathering the data.

good ruling.

burdensome as fuck. but good

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

elleng

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-25-09 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. Very good ruling.

Haven't read the decision, but there have been several instances recently wherein the 'analysts' really messed up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

babylonsister

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-25-09 11:07 PM
Response to Original message

2. And DNA? How does he feel about that? nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

elleng

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-25-09 11:57 PM
Response to Original message

4. How's THIS as a 'timely' example:

A federal jury has awarded $5 million to a Houston man who spent 17 years in prison on kidnapping and rape charges that were overturned in 2005.

Forty-eight-year-old George Rodriguez sued after being convicted in 1987 based on evidence from the troubled Houston Police Department crime lab that was later discredited.

His lawyers argued that city officials were deliberately indifferent to a lack of supervision at the crime lab that created a risk that an innocent person could be convicted.

The city argued that Rodriguez's conviction was the result of false testimony given by a former crime lab manager and was not the fault of the city.

http://nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/25/us/AP-US-Crime-Lab-Lawsuit.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DCKit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-26-09 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #4

5. "The city argued ... not the fault of the city."

Is this a prelude (even a precedent) to holding corporations accountable for the actions of their employees and officers?

Oh, and a big "F.U." to the city of Houston for not admitting they were wrong. It would have cost the taxpayers less $$$ if you had, assholes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

elleng

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-26-09 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #5

6. Doubt it, as this is a jury decision;

the City may appeal, and fight it out.

BUT/AND, from the Supremes today: Crime laboratory reports may not be used against criminal defendants at trial unless the analysts responsible for creating them give testimony and subject themselves to cross-examination, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a 5-to-4 decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/26lab.html?_r=1&hp

In the Supremes' decision, what happens is the State has to make the analysts available, if it wants to use that evidence. There's no issue of who pays $, as in the Houston case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 09:41 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.