Supreme Court ruled in favor of a criminal defendant today in the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, available here. The Court held that, under the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in Crawford v. Washington, the Confrontation Clause requires that the expert who prepared a scientific report must be produced at trial so that the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the expert.
It's a long, 5-4 opinion, with a slightly unusual breakdown of judges. Scalia wrote the majority. Scalia wrote Crawford, so his stake in this is obvious. The other judges to join him were Stevens, Ginsburg, Thomas and Souter. Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion. Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion, that Alito, Roberts and Breyer joined.
I haven't read the opinion yet, only a couple summaries and a little analysis. So I won't go into depth about the substance at this point.
But what's important to note is whether this decision will have an impact on New York. Before Melendez-Diaz, lower courts were basically all over the place on how to interpret Crawford in this context. In New York, the Court of Appeals offered its view in People v. Rawlins and People v. Meekins. Disclosure (sort of): I originally had a case that was linked with these two but decided separately (People v. Leon). In Rawlins, the court stated that it was error for a latent fingerprint report to be admitted without the officer who prepared it testifying. In Meekins, the court concluded that it was okay to admit a DNA lab report without the expert testifying. So, at face value, Rawlins seems consistent with Melendez-Diaz, but Meekins may not be.
The results were different in those two cases because the Court of Appeals believed that the type of scientific report mattered as to whether the expert had to testify. The question is whether Melendez-Diaz supports this analysis. It appears that Melendez-Diaz adopts the test that the expert must be called where the report was prepared in order to be used as evidence at trial. I believe that Court of Appeals in Meekins looked at factors beyond that test in determining whether the expert had to be called.
The most interesting aspect about all of this is that Meekins filed a cert. petition last year. The petition is still pending before the Supreme Court. The Court held a private conference today in which they may have looked at the Meekins petition again. There is a good chance that the Court will issue what's known as a GVR (grant, vacate and remand) in Meekins. In that event, the case will get sent back to the Court of Appeals for that court to reconsider the issue in light of Melendez-Diaz.
So, stay tuned.
It's a long, 5-4 opinion, with a slightly unusual breakdown of judges. Scalia wrote the majority. Scalia wrote Crawford, so his stake in this is obvious. The other judges to join him were Stevens, Ginsburg, Thomas and Souter. Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion. Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion, that Alito, Roberts and Breyer joined.
I haven't read the opinion yet, only a couple summaries and a little analysis. So I won't go into depth about the substance at this point.
But what's important to note is whether this decision will have an impact on New York. Before Melendez-Diaz, lower courts were basically all over the place on how to interpret Crawford in this context. In New York, the Court of Appeals offered its view in People v. Rawlins and People v. Meekins. Disclosure (sort of): I originally had a case that was linked with these two but decided separately (People v. Leon). In Rawlins, the court stated that it was error for a latent fingerprint report to be admitted without the officer who prepared it testifying. In Meekins, the court concluded that it was okay to admit a DNA lab report without the expert testifying. So, at face value, Rawlins seems consistent with Melendez-Diaz, but Meekins may not be.
The results were different in those two cases because the Court of Appeals believed that the type of scientific report mattered as to whether the expert had to testify. The question is whether Melendez-Diaz supports this analysis. It appears that Melendez-Diaz adopts the test that the expert must be called where the report was prepared in order to be used as evidence at trial. I believe that Court of Appeals in Meekins looked at factors beyond that test in determining whether the expert had to be called.
The most interesting aspect about all of this is that Meekins filed a cert. petition last year. The petition is still pending before the Supreme Court. The Court held a private conference today in which they may have looked at the Meekins petition again. There is a good chance that the Court will issue what's known as a GVR (grant, vacate and remand) in Meekins. In that event, the case will get sent back to the Court of Appeals for that court to reconsider the issue in light of Melendez-Diaz.
So, stay tuned.
Comments