U.S. Supreme Court
Justices Appear Open to a Ruling Requiring Lab Workers to Testify
Posted Nov 11, 2008 9:49 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on whether the Sixth Amendment requires lab workers to be available for cross-examination about their forensic reports.
The justices “appeared open to ruling” that testimony is required about the analysis of drug, blood or other forensic evidence, USA Today reports. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that California has many drug prosecutions and requires laboratory testimony, although supervisors are permitted to testify on behalf of technicians, the Daily Journal reports (sub. req.).
California "seems to get along all right," Kennedy said.
But Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, making her first Supreme Court appearance, said requiring lab workers to testify could be a major burden for state justice systems. "Misdemeanor drug prosecutions would essentially grind to a halt," she said.
The New York Times reports that several justices appeared to struggle with the dividing line between information that must be presented through live testimony and evidence that is so routine or tangential that it can be presented by certification.
Kennedy suggested a distinction between routine chemical analysis and newer evidentiary tests that could be examined in court testimony, the Times account says. “Now, if there are new tests, complex DNA tests and so forth, I suppose there is a lot to ask about,” Kennedy said. “Standard blood alcohol, not much to ask about.”
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Nov 11, 2008 9:59 AM CST
The lab RATS should testify as well. THEY see everything that goes on!
Flag this comment
John Wheeler
Nov 11, 2008 6:51 PM CST
Frequently, it is only the person(s) who are involved in the actual handling and analysis of a sample in the laboratory who know with certainty how the sample was handled and the details regarding how it was analyzed. A supervisor can testify only to a limited number of facts, such as what the standard analytical procedures are, whether such procedures were mandated (or supposed to be in use) at that laboratory at that time, etc. The laboratory technician who handled and analyzed the sample has an entire universe of facts regarding the taking and receipt of the sample, and its handling, preparation and analysis, of which a supervisor would not have knowledge, let alone direct knowledge.
Although it is very unfortunate, there have been genuine instances where, under pressure from a superior, a laboratory technician has faked results. In such cases the superior can testify as to the procedures that were purportedly put in place in the laboratory to assure accuracy. However, only by questioning the technician in such circumstances can the truth come out. There probably are a large number of less-egregious instances in which laboratory samples were not handled and analyzed in accordance with specified procedures (for instance, a sample may have been accidentally left out of the refrigerator too long before storage or analysis, etc.). Again, only through examination/cross-examination of the laboratory technician can these frequently-critical facts be revealed.
As a former laboratory scientist - now attorney - I am acutely aware of what can happen in analytical laboratories during the course of sampling, handling and analysis of samples.
While Justice Kennedy’s reported distinction between routine and cutting edge analyses has much merit, it does not appear to address a fundamental fact: only the technician who handles and analyzes the sample has actual knowledge of critical facts that could be pivotal as to whether a laboratory result is scientifically valid or not valid.
Laboratory test results are increasingly relied upon in criminal, environmental regulatory, and many other types of legal proceedings. The more that such results are influential (let alone determinative) of a person’s criminal guilt, or of a chemical’s safety in the environment or in food, the more diligent should be the inquiry into all aspects of the “fact” that a laboratory analysis purportedly shows.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.