New Supreme Court Case: Lab analysts must testify to their forensic reports in drug trials
On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state’s laboratory analyst must testify in person at a criminal defendant’s trial if the state wishes to introduce forensic reports showing a substance to be drugs.
In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the defendant, Melendez-Diaz, was arrested for distributing and trafficking in cocaine. Police were notified that he was acting in a suspicious manner while working at a Kmart and witnessed him make an apparent drug sale outside the store. An officer then detained and searched Melendez-Diaz and found white plastic bags containing a substance resembling cocaine. More bags were found in the police car after he had been transported to jail. The police submitted the substance to a state laboratory for a chemical analysis.
At trial, the prosecution entered into evidence the bags holding the substance and three “certificates of analysis” which were sworn to by a notary public as required by state law. The certificates stated that the substance was in fact cocaine and gave the weight as well. The defense objected to the evidence, since under the former Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington, a defendant’s accuser must testify in court unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Specifically, Crawford requires a witness to testify at trial when giving “testimonial” statements. Crawford was based on every citizen’s right to confront his accusers under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. The trial court disagreed with the defense and allowed the certificates to be introduced into evidence without compelling the analyst who made the reports to testify. Melendez-Diaz was then convicted. He lost on appeal until his case reached the Supreme Court of the United States.
The state argued that analysts do not have to testify in court since they are not accusatory witnesses. The Court disagreed with the state and determined that a witness is not excused from testifying at trial simply because he did not interrogate the witness. A witness is also not excused simply because his statements come from neutral and scientific testing. The Court found that the statements on the certificates were the type of statements Crawford intended to cover, since an objective witness would have reasonably believed that the statements made on the certificates would be available for use at trial. Furthermore, the purpose of the evidence was to show the substance’s composition and weight for which he was on trial for. Thus, information stating that a substance is a drug is in fact testimonial in nature which requires a witness to testify at trial.
Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.
