Laboratory Reports and Crawford challenges

SCOTUS blog indicates that:

In a significant new case on the Confrontation Clause, the [U.S. Supreme] Court said it would consider the constitutionality of prosecutors’ offering a crime lab report as evidence in a criminal trial, instead of the live testimony of the expert who prepared the report. (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 07-591).

This is a significant development, especially in light of C.A.A.F.'s handling of the issue in United States v. Harcrow, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0135/MC, slip op. at 13(C.A.A.F. Mar. 13, 2008); and the potential effect if any on the decision in United States v. Magyari, 63 M.J. 123 (C.A.A.F. 2006).

Docket: 07-591; Case name: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
Question Presented: 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 [,541 U.S. 36] (2004).

• 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)

Our worthy colleague at CAAFLog has a discussion of Harcrow, as hard cases making bad law.

The Supreme Court has declined to hear another Confrontation Clause case — Iowa v. Bentley, 07-886 — testing when a report of an interview with a child about a crime may be used as evidence, if the child does not testify at trial. Mentioned earlier "here."