Justices Appear Open to a Ruling Requiring Lab Workers to Testify
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.”
