Court Opinions | Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Archive for the ‘Court Opinions’ Category

November 30th, 2011

Texas Judge Suzanne Wooten Found Guilty of Bribery, Money Laundering – Plea Deal, No Jail Time

Texas Judge Suzanne Wooten has been found guilty of bribery (6 counts) as well as money laundering, record tampering, and engaging in organized criminal activity. That was after a full-blown jury trial.

Suzanne Wooten has also been sentenced to ten (10) years probation, a $10,000 fine, and must perform over 1000 hours of community service. That was the sentence after a deal was reached between the prosecutors and the defense – and approved by visiting judge Kerry Russell.

Seems that negotiations were hot and heavy over the Thanksgiving holiday and when the jury returned to the courtroom, expecting another 3-4 days or more of jury duty for the sentencing phase, the deal was announced. No need for the jury to worry about Judge Wooten anymore.

Was justice done?

It’s a subject of debate. Judge Wooten had political enemies that some argued had it out for the judge (see our earlier post here). The ABA Journal reports that in the family law cases upon which the bribery charges were based (i.e., where the judge allegedly took money in exchange for a favorable ruling), Judge Wooten not only testified that she was not aware of any improper campaign donations but that she recused herself from the case after hearing about the connection between a donor and a pending family matter. Other points: Wooten took a pay cut to take the bench.

Here’s an interesting take on things. Read the comments section of the Collin County Observer in its local coverage of the verdict: there are still those that think that justice was not served here and that former judge Suzanne Wooten got played.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 9:39 am

No Comments
Labels: Court Opinions, Judge Watch

November 9th, 2011

Texas Prosecutors Come Under Increased Scrunity in Texas: Hank Skinner Stay Within Weeks of Michael Morton Release

Hank Skinner is still alive today thanks to a last minute stay granted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals – and it’s still open for debate whether or not his requests will be granted for DNA evidence to be tested. (For details on Hank Skinner’s case, check out our earlier posts here and here.)

Read the November 7, 2011 Order and Opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in the Hank Skinner case online here.

However, as Hank Skinner’s story continues to be followed by the international media there is a new slant on the story that is gaining lots of ground: the actions and attitudes of the Texas prosecutors in the Hank Skinner case.

This is especially interesting, given the recent reporting on prosecutorial misconduct in the Michael Morton case. It was only a few weeks ago that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion in Morton’s case, freeing Michael Morton as an innocent man wrongfully convicted of his wife’s murder after serving many, many years on Texas Death Row.

DNA evidence freed Morton — evidence that the Texas prosecutors in that case didn’t want to pursue, didn’t want to use, didn’t want to be considered on appeal. Hank Skinner is fighting a similar fight to Morton’s quest for justice; Skinner’s case, however, appears to be even stronger in its own way than Morton’s arguments.

That’s because in Hank Skinner’s case, a Texas prosecutor (Gray County District Attorney John Mann) did have crime scene evidence tested for DNA only to find that:

Hank Skinner was at the crime scene (Skinner doesn’t dispute he was there, just that he was too intoxicated to do anything)
Hair from an unknown person was found in one victim’s hand (DNA shows it’s not Hank Skinner’s hair)
Blood on a cassette recorder at the scene is from an unknown person (not the victims nor Hank Skinner)
Blood on gauze found on the sidewalk in a blood trail, also from an unknown person (not the victims nor Hank Skinner)

After the Gray County District Attorney got this DNA evidence back from his crime lab, what did he do? He stopped testing evidence. That’s right.

Which means the Texas prosecutor did not test:

two knives found at the scene with blood on them, known to have been used in the murders
vaginal swabs taken from one victim, found with her pants halfway off her body
a windbreaker found at the crime scene within 24 inches of a victim’s body, covered in blood and sweat – a jacket known to be similar to one worn by this victim’s uncle — who had been stalking her shortly before the murders

It gets worse. After that District Attorney lost re-election, the new District Attorney reviewed the crime reports on the DNA tests that had been done and told Skinner’s attorneys about them — but coupled that with his position that there would be no more DNA testing without the court forcing the prosecution to do so.

That’s right: he knew about the windbreaker, the knives, and the swab — and he refused to test them.

So what’s with the prosecutors in the State of Texas?

Why would a Texas district attorney do this, aren’t they supposed to be representing the State of Texas in the pursuit of justice? Good question.

Right now, we’ve got law school professors giving their opinions on why these prosecutors would do stuff like this to CNN and we’ve got leaders of the Innocence Project giving their take on things in the media, like Chicago’s David Protess at the Huffington Post.

Lots of talk and discussion over something that doesn’t seem that hard to see: Texas prosecutors look to be more interested in victory in the courtroom than in justice being served. Not big news to criminal defense bar in Texas, but it seems to be shocking to most of the American Public.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 5:33 pm

No Comments
Labels: Court Opinions, DA Watch, Orwellian Threats to Rights

October 12th, 2011

Prosecutorial Misconduct Spotlighted in Michael Morton Case as Texas High Court Releases Innocent Man

This morning, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion in the Michael Morton case, where the Innocence Project (among others) have been working hard to overturn Morton’s 1987 conviction (and life sentence) for murdering his wife.

Read the full text of the CCA’s opinion, hot off the presses, here.

For background on the travesty of justice involved in the conviction of Michael Morton, read our August 2011 post “Innocence Project Finds Another Innocent Man Convicted of Murder in Texas but Loses Fight to Boot Prosecutor for Bias.” where we have been monitoring the efforts to remove the Williamson County District Attorney from the case.

DNA Tests Prove Michael Morton Did Not Kill His Wife

In its opinion, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals finds as a fact that Morton is innocent, accepting the DNA testing into its deliberations which had shown that another individual, not Morton, committed the crime. Morton’s conviction has been vacated.

What Did the Prosecutor Hide?

Investigations have been ongoing into the actions (or lack thereof) by the prosecutor in this case because there is reason to believe that evidence which would prove that Morton was innocent was withheld by the district attorney’s office of Williamson County.

The evidence withheld includes: (1) the eyewitness account of Morton’s young son, who said that the killer was not his father; (2) the victim’s Visa card found later at a store in San Antonio; (3) a cashed check, made out to the victim, with an apparent forged endorsement on the back where it was cashed almost two weeks after the homicide; and (4) the bandanna found at the crime scene with DNA evidence on it (which has been the basis of the vacated conviction).

What Happens to Michael Morton Now? He’s Free and He’s Gonna Get Paid

Michael Morton has been walking free since October 3, 2011 (when an earlier hearing allowed his release pending today’s ruling) and now, under the laws of the State of Texas, he will be entitled to receive $80,000/year of wrongful imprisonment as well as $2,000,000 in an annuity that earns 5% interest.

And before anyone gets excited about that cash, think about it: this man has served a huge part of his life behind bars, with most folk believing that he had killed his own wife. Does anyone really think that this moola really fixes all that — that this man wouldn’t prefer to erase all this rather than have that cash now? These payments don’t excuse or weaken the wrong of prosecutorial misconduct.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 4:32 pm

No Comments
Labels: Court Opinions, DA Watch

August 17th, 2011

Another Law to Fix Driver Responsibility Surcharges: Prove You’re Indigent, and Judge Can Waive Surcharges

Around three weeks from now (on September 1, 2011), a new law will be effective here in Texas that will impact a lot of folk who have been convicted of a moving traffic violation here in the Lone Star State. Right now, everyone who gets a traffic ticket must pay a Driver Responsibility surcharge – and these can be very expensive. And by that, we mean VERY EXPENSIVE.

Back in April 2010, we discussed DWI Surcharges. From that post:

Right now, Texas drivers convicted of DWI (driving while intoxicated) as well as a couple of other violations (driving without a driver’s license, or one that’s invalid; as well as driving without insurance) must pay automatic surcharges every year, for three years from the date of conviction.

And it isn’t cheap: for a DWI conviction, the surcharge is $1,000 a year for three years for a first conviction; $1,500 a year for the second; and $2,000 a year for any conviction with a blood-alcohol content of 0.16 or greater. That’s big money, right?

People Aren’t Paying the Surcharges

It’s not news to those involved in DWI work that people aren’t paying these surcharges. However, everyone may not know that state-wide, over $1 billion hasn’t been paid. One billion dollars in unpaid surcharges – no wonder they’re having some hearings down in Austin.

New Law Will Exempt Those Who Can Prove They Are Indigent: Tex. Transpo. Code Section 708.150

Seems that the Texas Legislature has reviewed its past work on the Drivers’ Responsibility Surcharge and has heard criticism and outcry about this draconean surcharge business. Result? A New Law.

It’s Section 708.150 of the Texas Transportation Code, and it provides that if someone can prove in court (through specific documentation as provided in the new statute) that they are indigent, then the Judge can waive their surcharge.

There is controversy right now about how the new law is to be read. Does it only apply to future traffic tickets, or does it go back in time, allowing folk burdened with these expensive surcharges to seek judicial relief?

Of course it will be argued that the new law must apply to those who are already unduly burdened with the expensive surcharges (easier word, fines). However, no one will know for sure until judges actually start making rulings on the New Law and prosecutors start appealling those decisions so that higher courts (and eventually the Court of Criminal Appeals) can decide where the line in the sand of time is drawn to help people who cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars every year for Driver Responsibility.

Who can qualify?

Here is the full text of the new law itself, which outlines how to qualify for “indigent status” under the new law:

Sec. 708.158. INDIGENT STATUS AND REDUCTION OF SURCHARGES. (a) The department shall waive all surcharges assessed under this chapter for a person who is indigent. For the purposes of this section, a person is considered to be indigent if the person provides the evidence described by Subsection (b) to the court.

(b) A person must provide information to the court in which the person is convicted of the offense that is the basis for the surcharge to establish that the person is indigent. The following documentation may be used as proof:

(1) a copy of the person’s most recent federal income tax return that shows that the person’s income or the person’s household income does not exceed 125 percent of the applicable income level established by the federal poverty guidelines;

(2) a copy of the person’s most recent statement of wages that shows that the person’s income or the person’s household income does not exceed 125 percent of the applicable income level established by the federal poverty guidelines; or

(3) documentation from a federal agency, state agency, or school district that indicates that the person or, if the person is a dependent as defined by Section 152, Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the taxpayer claiming the person as a dependent, receives assistance from:

(A) the food stamp program or the financial assistance program established under Chapter 31, Human Resources Code;

(B) the federal special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1786;

(C) the medical assistance program under Chapter 32, Human Resources Code;

(D) the child health plan program under Chapter 62, Health and Safety Code; or

(E) the national free or reduced-price lunch program established under 42 U.S.C. Section 1751 et seq.

Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146, Sec. 15.04, eff. September 1, 2011.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 3:46 pm

No Comments
Labels: Court Opinions

June 22nd, 2011

Federal Judge Sam A. Lindsay Sick and Tired of Bad Cops Getting Cushy Sentences: Orders Former Mesquite Narc Officer to 15 Months in Fed Pen for Taking $2000

Some Dallas locals may remember Sam Lindsay from his days serving as Dallas City Attorney (1992-1998); however, for many years now, he’s been Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, presiding over a federal trial bench.

And last week, Judge Sam A. Lindsay got fed up with police officers getting preferential treatment in sentencing – and he officially said so, announcing his frustration from the bench and in the public record as he sentenced a defendant who had served 22 years on the Mesquite, Texas, police department to 1 year and 3 months in a federal pen.

FBI Sting Nabs Sticky Fingered Texas Cop

The backstory unfolds last December, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) got a tip that there was a veteran police officer on the Mesquite Police Department that was a thief: he was routinely taking money from cash taken during police searches. So, the FBI got their cameras and microphones and other fancy gizmos and started their investigation.

Now, the Mesquite cop has been caught, convicted, and sentenced by Judge Sam A. Lindsay. This came about last March, after John David McAllister got busted by the FBI after they put $100,000 into a bag, put it in a car, and then told Mr. McAllister to go get it for them, it was drug money that they wanted seized. Sure enough, video cameras were trained on the car as the Mesquite cop confiscated the bag o’cash and promptly swiped $2000 off the top, stuffing the marked bills into his pants.

It gets better. With that two grand hot in his pocket, the FBI cameras followed good old Mesquite cop John David McAllister as he roamed over to a local mall and got himself a nice watch (price tag, $480).

The Last Straw for the Federal Judge

Things quickly went from bad to worse for the caught cop. Appearing before Judge Sam A. Lindsay for sentencing, he was face to face with a federal judge who’s had enough. Despite crying onlookers, the fact that McAllister pled guilty, and an Internal Affairs review that found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Officer McAllister (who was head of their narcotics department), the bench found a 15 month sentence appropriate.

Of course, Judge Sam A. Lindsay had lots of leeway: the maximum sentence he could have legally imposed was ten years, and when you compare that with 15 months it looks like the judge was lenient. Many disagree, though. They argue that the absence of any criminal record, etc., means that McAllister should get a maximum sentence of 6 months under the federal sentencing guidelines.

That sentencing guideline argument sounds good, but it doesn’t fly. The federal bench is very powerful, and Judge Sam has the discretion to exceed that guideline if, in his opinion, circumstances warrant it.

And boy o boy, does Judge Sam A. Lindsay believe that circumstances warrant it. He’s tired of people who have sworn to uphold the law turn around and break it. He’s explained his decision here as being a deterrence — and he wants other Texas law enforcement officers to notice what has happened this week in his courtroom.

From the bench, the judge bolstered his decision by pointing to a few Dallas-area cases where police officers got caught doing bad things and ended up with probation: no jail time.

Hopefully, other Texas judges will have the courage and integrity of Judge Sam A. Lindsay to let law enforcement know that in the future, cops gone bad will go to jail in Texas. We can hope, right?

Posted by Michael Lowe at 5:21 pm

1 Comment
Labels: Corrupt Cops, Court Opinions, Judge Watch

May 11th, 2011

Who Will Bring Texas Prosecutor James Elliott to Justice In the Delma Banks Case? He’s Retrying a 30 Yr Old Death Penalty Case Despite US Supreme Ct Rebuke

In 2004, Texas Death Row inmate Delma Banks’ case came before the United States Supreme Court, where the Highest Court in the Land found that prosecutors had done very bad things — they had suppressed evidence, they had hidden their own mistakes, etc. — and because of this, Banks’ case was overturned. Read the U.S. Supreme Court opinion here, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The Texas Tribune quoted UT Law professor Robert C. Owen (and Banks’ co-appellate counsel) as saying that “… just about every kind of thing the prosecution could do that was improper….” was done in this case.

You’d think that the Bowie County district attorney’s office might be a little, well, chagrined about this. Embarrassed. You’d think that maybe they would treat the case a bit differently once it came back to their desk, right?

Wrong. The same prosecutor that manned that helm 30 years ago in this notorious prosecution is going back to court, seeking the death penalty against Delma Banks again. AGAIN.

James Elliott is on a mission, according to the Tribune, to go after Banks until Banks “ …gets what he deserves.”

Moving to Disqualify

Next Monday, no surprise to anyone, Mr. Banks’ motion to disqualify Jim Elliott will be heard before District Judge Nathan E. White – along with the rest of the Bowie County District Attorney’s Office. Bias. Conflict of Interest. You follow the gist of things.

Seems like it will be an easy call for the court. After all, the record will show (remember, you’ve got records that include a United States Supreme Court opinion here) that among other things:

there was no physical evidence linking Banks to the crime of killing Whitehead
there were no witnesses to the killing
Banks was black and 21 years old at the time of the killing
Whitehead was white
Banks had no criminal record
Witnesses who saw Banks and Whitehead together that night said they were fine, no ill will
it was an all-white jury that convicted Banks
it was an all-white jury that sentenced Banks to death

And, importantly, the record will show that 20 years after the trial, a federal district court judge forced the Bowie County, Texas, records to be opened and there it was found that:

one of the two prosecution witnesses relied upon to prove their case had had his testimony rehearsed and coached – a lot; and
the other prosecution witness had been a police informant with a record of being shifty who was paid $200 for his part in the case.

We join with Grits for Breakfast, asking why prosecutors are not disciplined by the State Bar or otherwise sanctioned when an appellate court finds prosecutorial misconduct.

On Monday, the well-respected Texas blogger Scott Henson at Grits for Breakfast published a post worth reading, entitled, “ Why aren’t prosecutors held accountable when appellate courts find knowing misconduct?.”

Looking at the Banks’ case as well as the analogous Anthony Graves case, Mr. Henson actually conducted a poll of his readers to find what they thought about disciplining district attorneys who do bad things during the prosecution of a criminal matter, particularly one where they are asking for the penalty of death.

Results? An overwhelming number think that there should not be a shield of immunity here.

However, right now, the only bad thing that may happen to Texas prosecutor James Elliott is that he may be disqualified from the case on Monday. Is justice served?

Posted by Michael Lowe at 8:33 am

1 Comment
Labels: Court Opinions, DA Watch, Orwellian Threats to Rights

September 29th, 2010

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Doesn’t Trust Dogs – or at least, Dog Scent Evidence

James Bond, Quincy, and Clue are three bloodhounds, reportedly trained by now-retired Texas cop Keith Pikett, who retired this year. You remember bloodhounds — they all look just like Jed Clampett’s dog Duke on the old “Beverly Hillbillies” TV show. Cute, right?

Well, retired law enforcement officer and dog trainer Pikett has been sued in three lawsuits (reports are there may be more) where the convicted men are alleging that Pikett’s professional sniffing dogs made a mistake, sniffing a link between each of the accused and crimes for which they are innocent. The reputation of James Bond, Quincy, and Clue have therefore been called into question by these law suits against their trainer.

In fact, James Bond, Quincy, and Clue have lost so much credibility at this point that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals — you know, the one where Chief Justice Sharon Keller presides — has just ruled that convicted murderer Richard Winfrey Sr., wins his appeal.

It seems that Mr. Winfrey was sentenced to 75 years in prison for stabbing someone to death (the victim was found to have 28 stab wounds), and back in 2004, the key evidence against Mr. Winfrey were the noses of James Bond, Quincy, and Clue — who sniffed Winfrey’s smell on the stabbing victim’s clothes.

According to the Keller Court, the most that the bloodhounds could do was provide “suspicion of guilt,” but the conclusion of dog noses alone isn’t enough to convict a man of murder.

Geez, wonder why it took until now, after investigation and trial and appeals all the way to the highest criminal court in the state, for someone to ponder whether the State of Texas had met its burden of proof in this case? (Read more about the scant evidence here.)

Is the entire Texas Criminal Justice System just going to the dogs?

Posted by Michael Lowe at 3:30 pm

1 Comment
Labels: Court Opinions

May 26th, 2010

Hank Skinner Wins Again: US Supreme Court Grants Cert in His Quest for Post-Conviction DNA Testing

Remember last fall, when Texas Death Row inmate Hank Skinner sued District Attorney Lynn Switzer? Within months of his scheduled execution, Hank was fighting hard — and he filed a new lawsuit, arguing that his civil rights had been violated because the prosecutor refused to allow Skinner to test evidence from the case for DNA.

Hank Skinner has always maintained his innocence, and some of the evidence still sits there — no one has ever figured out if Hank’s DNA is on the stuff or not. State hasn’t done it. District Attorney, nope. Judge, nope. Just not done.

March 2010 – Within Hours of Skinner Being Executed, U.S. Supreme Court Grants Stay

Months passed after Skinner sued the Prosecutor, and nothing happened. Execution Day arrived. Pressure mounted — even the President of France (that’s right — the President. of France.) got involved, calling the Governor of Texas asking him to intervene. (Skinner’s wife is French.)

Within hours of the time that Skinner was set to die, the United States Supreme Court took on the part of the Cavalry and issued a stay in the case. A stay to give them time to consider Skinner’s petition for writ of certiorari — and for the Court to decide if would hear arguments that Skinner’s should get a chance to get at the evidence to test it via a civil courtroom instead of a criminal one.

May 2010 – U.S. Supreme Court Grants Cert (Takes the Case)

This week, the Highest Court in the Land agreed to hear Skinner’s case. Petition for Writ of Certiorari was granted. It’s a big win for Death Row Hank Skinner.

If he wins at the Supreme Court, then he starts through the civil courts, arguing for testing, getting the evidence for testing, and then proceeding to try and get himself freed assuming the testing works out his way.

If he loses at the Supreme Court, then he goes back onto the Execution Schedule of the State of Texas. And Texas Governor Perry will start getting lots of phone calls, emails, and such from lots of people. People like the President of France.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 7:48 pm

1 Comment
Labels: Court Opinions, Death Row

April 21st, 2010

U.S. Supreme Court Finds Judge – DA Love Affair During Murder Trial Isn’t Worth Their Time. What? Really?

The good news for Charles Dean Hood is that he’s still going to get another bite at the apple on his sentence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has already ruled that another sentencing trial will happen for Mr. Hood.

Charles Dean Hood Is Snubbed by the United States Supreme Court – They Don’t Do a Thing about the Judge-DA Affair During Trial

However, the bad news is this: the United States Supreme Court has done squat about the rest of Mr. Hood’s case. And Charles Dean Hood had a pretty darn good reason to ask for a new guilt-or-innocence trial: during his original trial, the judge and the District Attorney trying the case for the State of Texas were having a sexual affair.

Pillow Talk? We have to assume so, don’t we? Isn’t that the right thing to do — assume that the lovers talked about their WORK, which just happened to be whether or not Charles Dean Hood should be convicted of capital murder and sentenced to die?

Supreme Court Is Silent on Their Reasons for This - Despite the Legion of Legal Ethics Scholars, Judges, and Prosecutors that Joined with Hood in his Request.

While for many, this Judge-DA Hanky Panky Point of Error seemed a slam dunk argument it obviously wasn’t for the High Court. They tossed out Hood’s petition on Monday. Without comment.

This, in the face of 20+ former judges and prosecutors filing an amicus brief supporting Hood’s position, along with 30+ experts in legal ethics.

Hood’s attorney has decried this as “fundemental injustice.”

Of course it is.

Read the Amicus Brief filed on behalf of Charles Dean Hood before the U.S. Supreme Court by former judges, state prosecutors, and state officials (including former Texas Governor Mark White and former FBI director William Sessions) at the Constitution Project site, where it is available for download as a pdf.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 7:54 pm

No Comments
Labels: Court Opinions, Judge Watch, Orwellian Threats to Rights

January 18th, 2010

Will the US Supreme Court Reverse Itself on Defense Examination of Crime Lab Techs?

Last week, we pondered the trustworthiness of crime labs in Texas – or more accurately, how inaccurate their results can be. One good bit of news in all that mess is the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009), where just this summer the Highest Court in the Land decided that criminal defense attorneys could cross-examine lab techs on their lab reports.

For many, it was shocking that defense attorneys weren’t already allowed the chance to question lab technicians on the witness stand about their lab results. (One more example of how CSI isn’t based in reality.) Well, here’s something even more shocking: the U.S. Supreme Court may change its mind.

That’s right. The Supreme Court may take back the right of a defense attorney to cross-examine crime lab pros.

Melendez-Diaz was just argued this summer. (Interestingly, Massachusetts’ Martha Coakley argued on behalf of the prosecution – you can watch the oral arguments at Oyez.org. Yes, this is the same Martha Coakley that is rumored to be losing her battle with Republican Scott Brown in tomorrow’s special election to fill Teddy Kennedy’s vacant Senate seat.)

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court granted – and heard – oral argument in another case just last week: Briscoe v. Virginia (07-11191). Briscoe is a consolidation of two cases, and it was argued by the Virginia Solicitor General for the prosecution. The two cases in Briscoe both dealt with ”certificates of analysis” from state crime labs without any forensic scientists taking the witness stand at the defendants’ trials. At issue, can the prosecution present evidence of illegal drugs (which is what the certificates claimed were found) without calling the human beings who did the forensic testing?

In these situations, criminal defense attorneys have to make a decision – should they stipulate to the certificates as being truthful, without questioning the lab techs? Sometimes, this may be smart. Sometimes, a good defense lawyer wants that crime lab tech on the stand.

What Will Happen to Melendez-Diaz now?

There are critics who argue that Melendez-Diaz was a wrong decision, that it was decided too fast and without sufficient consideration of the expense and confusion that forcing forensic technicians out of their labs and into courtrooms would raise. They’re excited that the Supreme Court will correct what they see as an error — particularly with Justice Sotomayor on the court now.

However, there are a great many criminal defense attorneys that aren’t happy about these rumblings. As Justice Scalia pointed out during last week’s Briscoe arguments, not putting those crime lab reports up for cross-examination is tantamount to “trial by affidavit.”

Without examination, these untrustworthy crime lab results are merely “trial by affidavit.”

Look, there’s a reason to put a human on the stand in these situations. Crime lab analysis is scientific in nature and there aren’t many scientists in the courtroom, usually. Those pieces of paper that pop out of labs are already known to be unreliable, and defense attorneys MUST have the opportunity to have that crime lab technician or forensic scientist on the witness stand to explain what was done, and why the results are (or aren’t) accurate.

We cannot bow to worship crime lab reports as inviolate. Let us only hope that the United States Supreme Court uses Briscoe to support Melendez-Diaz, and not to erase the victory for justice that Melendez-Diaz represents.

Posted by Michael Lowe at 6:15 pm

No Comments
Labels: Court Opinions, Crime News, Orwellian Threats to Rights