The US Supreme Court begins a new term this Monday with several important criminal cases that will have an impact on criminal law cases in Florida and throughout the nation. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, No. 07-591, the US Supreme Court will consider a case dealing with the right to confront adverse witnessess which is specifically guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. This is an important case because it may give the prosecution the ability to use crime lab reports without the testimony of the person preparing the lab report.
In 2001, Luis Melendez-Diaz was arrested and convicted of cocaine trafficking in Boston. The prosecution relied on crime lab reports. Jurors were told that these crime lab reports proved that the substances seized were indeed cocaine. In his appeal, Melendez-Diaz argued that the crime lab reports were "testimonial" and therefore subject to the Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment.
The crux of the argument before the Supreme Court is whether these crime lab reports are "testimonial" in nature. If they are, they're subject to the Confrontation Clause. This clause is integral to any criminal defense since it allows a criminal defense attorney to examine and interrogate the findings in the crime lab reports as well as the individual preparing the report. If criminal trial lawyers aren't able to do this, many wrongful convictions will result.
In another important criminal case up before the US Supreme Court is Herring v. United States, No. 07-513. In 2004, Mr. Herring drove to the Sheriff's Office to inquire about his impounded vehicle. Once he arrived, a deputy sheriff checked him for outstanding warrants. He was arrested shortly thereafter because the police had mistakenly thought there was indeed an outstanding warrant for him. Upon his arrest for the outstanding warrant, the police found firearms and methamphetamines on him. His criminal defense attorneys, moved to suppress the drug evidence because the original arrest (outstanding warrant) was mistaken and therefore unlawful. They invoked the exlusionary rule, evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. He was convicted anyway.
The question before the US Supreme Court in the Herring case concerns whether evidence gathered by a law enforcement officer in a good-faith search based on erroneous information from another law enforcement agency should be excluded.
Like Melendez-Diaz, the Herring case will have an impact on how criminal trials proceed in Florida and around the country.
Leave a comment