Justice Scalia struck a similar blow for freedom in
MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS:
Quote:
At petitioner’s state-court drug trial, the prosecution introduced certificates of state laboratory analysts stating that material seized by police and connected to petitioner was cocaine of a certain quantity. As required by Massachusetts law, the certificates were sworn to before a notary public and were submitted as prima facie evidence of what they asserted. Petitioner objected, asserting that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 , required the analysts to testify in person. The trial court disagreed, the certificates were admitted, and petitioner was convicted. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed, rejecting petitioner’s claim that the certificates’ admission violated the Sixth Amendment .
Held: The admission of the certificates violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. ...
|
Scalia wrote the majority opinion in that one. It threw prosecutors and defense attorneys into a tizzy, especially since DUI cases are prosecuted all the time based on certificates. I think they have since found a work around, but that case was a doozy.
I think it goes to show that the usual labels - conservative, liberal, right, and left - are unreliable.