The US Supreme Court's recent ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts that prosecutors must call lab chemists to testify in order to admit that chemist's lab reports has played out interestingly in courts throughout the nation. Defense is asking the courts to apply this rule to other less obvious forms of testimony by arguing that the Melendez-Diaz rule not only applies to scientist who create reports when testing substances in drug and DUI charges, but also also to employees who create documentation that is used in litigation. For example, when employees at department of licensing create reports indicating whether or not a defendant had a suspended license at the time he or she was pulled over.
But is the ruling in danger? Among the 5 majority is Justice Souter, who is soon to be replaced most likely by Judge Sotomayor if confirmed. Sotomayor, who though nominated by a democratic President has demonstrated a rather conservative record on criminal law issues, may come down on the other side of the fence with regards to this issue. That, combined with a rather scathing dissent in Melendez-Diaz suggests that this ruling may not be very long-lived. Indeed, the Court announced that next term, it will review the case of Briscoe et al., v. Virginia (07-11191). The issue in Briscoe is whether a defendant's right to confront witnesses is violated when the state presents a report without live testimony of the person who created that report, but notifies defense who that analyst is so it can call that analyst in its case in chief. This issue was rather clearly decided in Melendez-Diaz, with the court ruling that the state has to call such a witness. As such, it makes sense that the only reason the Justices would review this case next term is if they anticipate a ruling that either limits or overrules Melendez-Diaz entirely.
