US Supreme Court Rules That Defendants Have A Right To Cross Examine Forensic Experts

The United Supreme Court ruled today that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants the right to cross examine the scientists who issue forensics reports that are entered into evidence. The breakdown of the 5-4 ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (07-591) was interesting, with Justice Scalia's majority opinion joined by Justices Thomas, Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens. Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer dissented.

The ruling will provide for an added layer of challenge by defense lawyers to such criminal evidence as illegal drugs, fingerprints, blood spatter patterns and blood chemistry, guns and bullets, and other forms of physical evidence subjected to lab analyses, at least when the resulting reports are prepared for use as evidence in criminal trials.

Now, if prosecutors want to offer a crime lab report as evidence, and the report was prepared with the aim that it would be used at trial, the prosecution has to bring along the author or scientist and make them available for questioining by the defense — if the defense insists on the right to confront the analyst. It is not up to defense lawyers to summon them to the stand, but they must assert the right to confront the analyst, the Court indicated. A copy of the opinion can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-591.pdf.

Supreme Court Rules That There Is No Constitutional Right To DNA Testing

Wow. In the case of District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, our Supreme Court has held that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to DNA testing after their conviction, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, even though the technology provides an "unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty." William Osborne was convicted in Alaska in 1993 for a crime that DNA testing could prove he didn't commit. Alaska has arbitrarily refused Osborne’s requests for DNA testing for years – even though the testing would be performed at no cost to the state, and the state now concedes that DNA testing could prove his innocence. On June 18, the court ruled 5-4 that his constitutional rights were not violated by the state’s denial of testing.

Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project, who argued Osborne's case before the court, said the decision will mean that "more innocent people will languish in prison" because they lack the legal right to DNA testing. He's right.

LAPD Detective Charged 23 Years After Being Suggested As A Suspect In Slaying

After Sherri Rae Rasmussen was beaten and shot to death in 1986, her father urged Los Angeles police to investigate a fellow officer who had had confrontations with his daughter in the months leading up to her death, according to attorneys for the victim's family.

It was only this year, after LAPD cold-case detectives reopened the investigation and interviewed Rasmussen, that Det. Stephanie Lazarus became a suspect. The father's suspicions were bolstered Friday when police arrested Lazarus in connection with the slaying. On Monday, prosecutors charged Lazarus with capital murder, leaving open the possibility that they may seek the death penalty.

As part of an ongoing effort to solve thousands of old homicides, detectives revisited the case in February, testing blood or saliva samples from the crime scene thought to have been from the killer. DNA tests suggested that the attacker was a woman, contradicting the detectives' theory that she had been killed by a man. The cold-case detectives contacted Rasmussen and asked if he knew of any women with whom his daughter might have clashed. Rasmussen once again voiced his theory about Lazarus. This time detectives looked into it.

Why it took 23 years to charge this detective, I have no idea. The article is here.