SCOTUS hands down best decision of the decade. - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

winmutt · #1 07-15-2009, 02:40 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071403565_2.html?hpid=topnews

Quote:

The predictions are dire. In New York, murderers could walk free. In Fairfax County, drunken driving cases could be dismissed. And nationwide, thousands of drug cases might have to be thrown out of court annually.

Legal experts and prosecutors are concerned about the results of last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that requires lab analysts to be in court to testify about their tests. Lab sheets that identify a substance as a narcotic or breath-test printouts describing a suspect's blood-alcohol level are no longer sufficient evidence, the court ruled. A person must be in court to talk about the test results.

The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, has prosecutors and judges shaking their heads in disgust and defense lawyers nodding with satisfaction at the notion that the Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantee that defendants "shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him" is not satisfied by a sheet of paper.

Check out the break down of opinions.

tankdriver · #2 07-15-2009, 06:34 PM

Interesting breakdown of justices. And a pretty thorny problem now. There are going to be plenty of cases in which a lab tech will probably have to be in two places at once to testify.

BobK · #3 07-16-2009, 07:29 AM

probably be crazy at first. Some practices will be challenged and found wanting while others will stand the test. In the end, after some cases wind their way through the courts, precedents will be set and everything will return to normal. But, things will be done to a higher (but not unreasonable)standard. I think the courts have made a sensible decision. You have the right to challenge evidence used against you. Simple constitutional safeguard.

MS Fowler · #4 07-16-2009, 11:15 AM

I like the decision. I have the right to confront my accuser. The lab report is not my accuser.
I wonder if this will impact red-light cameras, and speed cameras.

link · #5 07-16-2009, 11:19 AM

Bravo!

Any time the burden of proof is increased it is a victory for We The People. Increasing the burden of proof is probably a difficult concept to comprehend for people who look at the law as being a tool of convenience for the state.

It also seems a reversal for the SC, who routinely rules against the rights of the individual.

Perhaps ideology is starting to shift a bit, several months after 8 years of the country being lead by an idiot who treated our Constitution as if it was a re-usable piece of toilet paper.

MTUpower · #6 07-16-2009, 11:25 AM

Yeah!!! More lawyers, more time spent in courts, more drunk drivers, more criminals going free!!!! Wow this is (doing my best Tony the tiger) GGGGGRRRREEAATTTT!!!!!!!

MS Fowler · #7 07-16-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by link

Bravo!

Any time the burden of proof is increased it is a victory for We The People. Increasing the burden of proof is probably a difficult concept to comprehend for people who look at the law as being a tool of convenience for the state.

It also seems a reversal for the SC, who routinely rules against the rights of the individual.

Perhaps ideology is starting to shift a bit, several months after 8 years of the country being lead by an idiot who treated our Constitution as if it was a re-usable piece of toilet paper.

Don't look now, but it wasn't JUST GB who failed to live up to his oath of office. Government tends to grow, and in general, ignore Constitutional restraints.
With no meaningful opposition, the dems are as likely to acrue power, and try to work around the Constitution as any nasty ole republican.
The phrase, " Congress shall make no law...." seems to attract people who want to find a way to make exactly the law that is forbidden.

Watch them closely.

Hatterasguy · #8 07-16-2009, 01:54 PM

No worries, find a nice tall tree and get about 30ft of some nice hemp rope, that will solve any problems.

raslaje · #9 07-16-2009, 02:05 PM

The personnel turnover in the medical examiner's office is so great that the pathologist who performs an autopsy on a victim often is not still employed there 18 months later, when the case goes to trial.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071403565_2.html?hpid=topnews

Why would anyone accept their work as the gospel truth when they've been spending their time looking for a job they really wanted?