to be confronted with the witnesses against him
Shocker: Court rules amendment means what it says.
9 Responses to “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
July 17th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Without reading the opinion, I’m guessing that it was the double whammy — hearsay and scientific evidence, both — that made the difference for the Court. The Court has previously held that the right to confrontation is narrower than the hearsay exceptions.
(I saw this personally, BTW, not too long ago, in Chicago, in a radar speed trap case. And I wonder how it will affect red light cameras.)
July 17th, 2009 at 11:33 am
If you are ever in legal trouble, make sure your lawyer requests from the laboratory: the protocol, all previous protocols, the standard operating procedure (SOP, which yes is different from the protocol), manual for each device used, maintenance record for each piece of equipment, documentation of training for each personnel, the quality control report, the raw data, and photocopies of the handwritten bench notes (or the tamper-proof bench notes computer file, if the technician enters data directly into the computer). Ask for a list of reagents, including the batch #s. Ask for the water quality report, and air quality report (usually done semi-annually). Lastly, history of inspections, including any violations noted and the steps taken to correct those violations.
If the lab can’t provide all of this information, then their data may be invalid, or even faked.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Yeah, that whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing rears its ugly head once more. Terrible shame, isn’t it? What’s next, an admission that jury trials really are for everyone?
July 17th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
What’s next, an admission that jury trials really are for everyone?
Your state’s constitution or statutes may say different, but under the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution you are not entitled to a jury trial as long as you are not sentenced to more than six months in prison.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Oh, and you are not entitled to a lawyer, either, as long as you are not sent to prison or ordered to pay more than a $500.00 fine. Which is kind of an interesting discussion, if you want to have one.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Oh noes, they already can’t process all the drug samples they get in. Gee, ya’ think that might be because they shouldn’t be illegal, thus swamping a lab/legal system with junk cases that the early part of the 20th century would tell anyone that bothered to look that prohibition just creates organized crime. How about getting back to writing laws that protect good people from really being hurt by bad people and letting it go at that, then maybe they would have such a problem.
July 17th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
nk – I can’t find that stuff in the Constitution. All I can find is “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury… and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
and “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved…”
July 18th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Sorry, Will R, since Marbury v. Madison, the Constitution is only what the Supreme Court says it is.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Oh, boo-hoo, it will be terribly inconvenient for the Law Enforcement Growth Industry to have to actually *testify* when they testify.
Hold on, I’m looking for my tiny violin . . .