On June 25, 2009, a divided Supreme Court extended the reach of the Confrontation Clause in Melendez-Diaz v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts.1 In the 5-4 decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment bars prosecutors from using certified laboratory reports at trial in lieu of witness testimony. To get a laboratory report admitted at trial, prosecutors must now call the laboratory analyst who conducted the test and subject that witness to cross-examination at trial.
Melendez-Diaz is a reaffirmation and extension of Crawford v. Washington, the landmark 2004 decision concerning the admissibility of testimonial hearsay at trial.2 Melendez-Diaz directly rejects the admissibility of only a single type of evidence—certified laboratory reports—but the Court’s reasoning casts a broader shadow. Ultimately, Melendez-Diaz calls into question the procedure by which prosecutors lay a foundation for admission of business records via affidavits, a practice explicitly permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
