DUI Defender

In a decision that has major implications for citizens accused of driving under the influence (DUI), the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Melendez-Diaz vs. Massachusetts. Mr. Diaz was accused of possessing drugs, and pursuant to the usual procedures the alleged drug was sent to a crime lab for analysis. Rather than bringing in the person who performed the testing, the prosecution merely produced a declaration of the test results. The US Supreme Court held that this violates the right to confront a witness guaranteed to all citizens under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

In the context of DUI cases, many jurisdictions allowed the same procedure; that the blood or urine test results could come in merely by way of a sworn affidavit. For years defense attorneys have argued that this violated the accused’s Constitutional right to question a key witness against them. Now it is clear that it does.

The Court stated that many labs are not in fact “neutral”; they are branches of the law enforcement team. As such they “may feel pressure-or have an incentive- to alter the evidence in a manor favorable to the prosecution”. Further, since the labs are products of the police agencies they often “sacrifice appropriate methodology for the sake of expediency”. In other words, sometimes people rush or take shortcuts and sometimes they fudge because they work for the same team.

Only through the “crucible of cross examination” can the court or jury determine the accuracy of the results from a test. Such examination is necessary to weed out the “fraudulent analyst as well as the incompetent one”. It is cross examination which serves as the quality control unit in these cases.

Not only will it be necessary, as it should be, to bring in the person who tested these samples, it is equally necessary to bring in the person who took the sample. In a DUI investigation, if a blood sample is requested, the person taking the blood must follow rigorous protocols to ensure the blood is not contaminated and later results are accurate. For example, it is easy to understand that if you want a blood sample for alcohol, it would be wrong to wash the arm with alcohol where the needle is going. Anyone could see that would mean the alcohol collected would include the cleansing alcohol and would not be accurate.

Previously some courts would allow a mere written statement from the nurse that she took blood to suffice. Now, the nurse would need to come in to testify that she did in fact NOT use an alcohol saw and various other critical issues. Most every one of us could agree that mistakes happen and it is important to check every step in such a critical situation as criminal convictions.

What is most interesting about this case, and its recent predecessor Crawford v. Washington is that they both rely on one of the oldest cases in Anglo-American jurisprudence; the Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh. Sir Raleigh was tried and convicted of Treason without witnesses coming in to court. They allegedly wrote accusations against Raleigh and he was never allowed to question whether they were true, or not; whether the witnesses were paid or threatened, or any other aspect which we all take for granted. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights with that case in mind, especially the right of confrontation. Now more than 400 years later, our Supreme Court has reaffirmed that position; that one accused of a crime MUST have the people making those accusations appear in court to be queried about their testimony or findings.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed