The United States Supreme Court decided today, June 25, 2009, the case Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. This case centered around whether the sworn affidavit detailing the composition of a substance (cocaine) was testimonial in nature as controlled by the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause of the US Constitution.
The majority ruled that the Confrontation Clause was violated when the analyst did not testify at trial. Rather, the trial court ruled that the affidavit itself be admitted. Needless to say, the defendant could not cross examine the piece of paper and the court today rules otherwise.
This seems to violate previous rules in criminal trial according to the dissent. However, the opinion disagrees pointing to language that defines testimonial evidence to include affidavits when the ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the purpose was to be evidence in a criminal trial at some later date.
Obviously, analytical documents are intended to show evidence at trial: mainly to document what substance the defendant possessed (or distributed etc) that they are charged with and going to trial.
It should be noted that the affidavit in question was prepared by the analyst and notarized as to what the content was and that the result was true and correct. The court rules that this kind of evidence is not a business record (so that a hearsay exception might be established) and that as such a record the defendant may not be denied the opportunity to cross examine the witness unless such opportunity was available at a critical stage of the proceedings earlier.
I suspect that many proceedings will be analyzed anew under this opinion, since many jurisdictions have probably followed the Massachusetts trial courts procedures or are contemplating doing so.
Have we now got it right? I would guess the great debate in future proceedings will revolve around the definition of evidence covered under the Confrontation Clause. This clause has been found to apply to the States under the Federal Sixth Amendment (1962) and is frequently at issue. Much of the focus in the state of modern technology including DNA and other chemical analysis will be in the process and procedure in dealing with the method and the sample itself.
Perhaps some jurisdictions will go back to the drawing board in writing their Rules of Evidence. This probably will not be the last case of its kind as others will seek a narrowing clarification yet again. The public might think this yet another guilty person who gets off free due to a technicality. Perhaps questions about this case should be put to Sonia Sotomayor at her upcoming confirmation hearing.
