U.S. Supreme Court may have been inadvertently drunk & drive a free ride. In June, ruled in a 5-4 decision, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees "... to be confronted with the witnesses against him" is not satisfied with a sheet of paper. This means that the lab technician responsible for processing the blood sample of their detention must be brought before the court to discuss the results showing to what extent you're drunk.
Here's the problem with this. Many crime labs to process samples of drugs and DNA are already very stretched. Laboratories barely have time to process the lab work. The technicians did not have time to appear in court and read the lab results.
This will also increase the workload of state courts. Many drunkards plea bargain, but now many would take their case to court with the hope that the coach will not be displayed. Several cases have been overturned in Virginia only because the technician failed to appear to testify against the drunk. Expect more cases to be left out because the word comes out of this technicality.
The ruling came from a case in which Luis E. Díaz Meléndez cocaine allegedly hidden in a car of the Boston police while under arrest (great idea - the police will not think to look in your own car). The drugs were sent for analysis and the results were entered as evidence against him. Scalia wrote Melendez Diaz was entitled to "be confronted with" analysts at trial. " The conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment