A U.S. Supreme Court decision delivered this past spring has forced states to review the circumstances when crime lab technicians are required to testify in court about their reports. While this ruling has generally been praised by criminal defense attorneys, it has resulted in some confusion as state courts interpret and apply it. In fact, the situation is so muddled in California at this point, that two different state appellate courts - one in Sacramento and one in Los Angeles - have come up with opposite rulings even though the cases they confront are nearly identical.
Here's the background: The U.S. Supreme Court in June delivered its opinion in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, a case that asked this question: Are crime lab reports akin to business records, factual documents that can be submitted into evidence without cross-examination of the preparer, or are they "testimonial" in nature, with the perspective and bias of any witness for the prosecution, and thus subject to the Sixth Amendment's guarantee that the accused can confront and cross-examine witnesses?
Criminal defense attorneys were pleased when the Court declared that crime lab reports were testimonial and that defendants had to be able to cross-examine lab personnel. This is critical because defense attorneys need the opportunity to question technicians on their overall expertise, as well the procedures used in the preparation of specific lab reports. Though most reports are factually accurate, some are faulty, and defendants and their lawyers need the opportunity to "confront" the government's witnesses.
While many states had allowed lab reports to be submitted into evidence as factual documents (like an accountant's audit, for example) without the testimony of the preparer, California already had the practice of providing defense lawyers the opportunity to cross-examine lab personnel. This was even discussed during oral arguments before the Supreme Court for Melendez-Diaz.
But an interesting repercussion of this decision has already arisen here in California. Two different California appellate courts this summer came up with opposite applications of the Melendez-Diaz ruling. In one case, a state appellate court in Los Angeles ruled that it was okay for a member of the coroner's staff to testify about the contents of a report even though that person had not actually done the analysis. In another case, a state appellate court in Sacramento made the opposite ruling, requiring the person who actually did the lab work and wrote the report to appear in court. This is clearly an issue headed to the state Supreme Court, since one of that court's roles is to ensure uniform application of the law through the state.
It is our view that it is critical to have the report writer in court to testify not only to the data the report contains but also to the processes used, the background and expertise of lab personnel, and even the maintenance procedures followed for lab equipment. Defendants - whether accused of DUI, drug possession, theft, murder, or any other crime - have the right to be certain that law enforcement has followed appropriate safeguards in the acquisition and analysis of evidence and that the data presented in reports is accurate.
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, U.S. Supreme Court
Oral Arguments for Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
"Court Weighs Use of Crime Lab Reports at Trial," Associated Press, November 10, 2008
"California Appellate Courts Clash Over Coroner Testimony," Law.com, August 27, 2009
