Lab Reports & Crawford v. Washington

SCOTUS blogsite notes the following case scheduled for conference at the U.S. Supreme Court on 14 March 2008.

Docket: 07-591
Case name: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
Issue: Whether a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is “testimonial” evidence subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington (2004). (Disclosure: Akin Gump is co-counsel for the petitioner.)

• Opinion below (Appeals Court of Massachusetts)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of Professor Pamela R. Metzger, et al. (in support of the petitioner)
• Amicus brief of Professor Richard D. Friedman (in support of the petitioner)

C.A.A.F. has written on lab reports in connection with a urinalysis case:

United States v. Magyari, 63 M.J. 123 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment states that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him; under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Crawford v. Washington, in order for the prosecution to introduce testimonial out-of-court statements into evidence against an accused, the Confrontation Clause requires that the witness who made the statement be unavailable, and that the accused have had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness).