\"IT’S INTERESTING TO SEE PROSECUTORS SO WORRIED ABOUT THIS RULING. MAYBE NOT BEING ABLE TO MISREPRESENT WHAT THE LAB REPORTS MEAN, WITH THE ACTUAL LAB ANALYST PRESENT, IS A CONCERN?
A REAL FORENSIC SCIENTIST;
PHOTO: JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: It's not every day that an issue involving the work of forensic scientists in the criminal courts comes under scrutiny in the Supreme Court of the United States; Nor is it every day that the Supreme Court issues a searing indictment of the forensic science system in the country and faces head-on the abuses such as manipulation, prosecutorial pressure, outright fraud, bias, error and incompetence. Canadians are well aware of this through the many miscarriages of justice caused in Ontario by Dr. Charles Smith. Americans, who haven't received this message yet, will learn it from the blunt words of Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. The Supreme Court ruled that a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is “testimonial” evidence and therefore subject to "confrontation" through cross-examination of the analyst - but not before Justice Scalia told Americans how vulnerable they are to wrongful convictions as a result of American forensic science as it is practiced today. They need all of the protection of the law that they can get.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time I have the pleasure of landing on a sight which bears the intriguing title, "Bench Notes: CSI Episode Reviews and Other Comments by a Real Forensic Scientist."
I enjoyed this fellow Bloggist's delightful riff published on July 21,2009, under the heading "More Melendez-Diaz Whining."
"No the sky won’t fall, but forensic scientists are going to have to do a more complete job," the "Real Forensic Scientist" writes.
"Not only analyzing the evidence, and writing reports, but also explaining their results to the trier of fact, and defending their opinions against cross-examination," he continues;
"It’s interesting to see prosecutors so worried about this ruling. Maybe not being able to misrepresent what the lab reports mean, with the actual lab analyst present, is a concern?"
A faur question, indeed!
The post can be found at:
http://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox/122a90a6260e9371
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
