Post by subdjoe on Jul 15, 2009 12:57:22 GMT -5
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-591.pdf
MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS
CERTIORARI TO THE APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
No. 07–591. Argued November 10, 2008—Decided June 25, 2009
At petitioner’s state-court drug trial, the prosecution introduced certifi-cates of state laboratory analysts stating that material seized by po-lice and connected to petitioner was cocaine of a certain quantity. As required by Massachusetts law, the certificates were sworn to beforea notary public and were submitted as prima facie evidence of whatthey asserted. Petitioner objected, asserting that Crawford v. Wash-ington, 541 U. S. 36, required the analysts to testify in person. Thetrial court disagreed, the certificates were admitted, and petitionerwas convicted. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed, rejecting petitioner’s claim that the certificates’ admission violated the Sixth Amendment.
What is REALLY intersting is this:
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concur-
ring opinion.
KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROB-
ERTS, C. J., and BREYER and ALITO, JJ., joined.
Scalia, Souter, & Ginsburg all agree?
MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS
CERTIORARI TO THE APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
No. 07–591. Argued November 10, 2008—Decided June 25, 2009
At petitioner’s state-court drug trial, the prosecution introduced certifi-cates of state laboratory analysts stating that material seized by po-lice and connected to petitioner was cocaine of a certain quantity. As required by Massachusetts law, the certificates were sworn to beforea notary public and were submitted as prima facie evidence of whatthey asserted. Petitioner objected, asserting that Crawford v. Wash-ington, 541 U. S. 36, required the analysts to testify in person. Thetrial court disagreed, the certificates were admitted, and petitionerwas convicted. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed, rejecting petitioner’s claim that the certificates’ admission violated the Sixth Amendment.
What is REALLY intersting is this:
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concur-
ring opinion.
KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROB-
ERTS, C. J., and BREYER and ALITO, JJ., joined.
Scalia, Souter, & Ginsburg all agree?