GIST: "The justices of the U.S. Supreme
Court are given lifetime appointments to decide paramount questions of
law that affect almost every aspect of American life. It is therefore
unsurprising that from time to time these extraordinarily powerful
secular jurists attempt to play oracle. Justices prefer to lob
prophecies when they are writing in dissent—usually, though not always,
to forecast some calamitous consequences that will inevitably flow from
the majority’s ruling. But how often do these supreme prognosticators
actually get it right? Here’s a roundup of the justices’ most famous
predictions and a status update on whether they have yet come to pass.........In 2009’s Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts,
the Supreme Court ruled that forensic analysts who create laboratory
reports for criminal trials must testify if called by the defense.
Scalia’s majority opinion reasoned that these reports are “testimonial”
evidence and that their authors are thus “witnesses” under the Confrontation Clause.
In a dissent, a deeply irked Kennedy wrote that such analysts will “now
bear a crushing burden” and would often be unavailable to testify. As a
result, myriad “guilty defendant[s]” will “[go] free on a
technicality.” History has, in this instance, smiled kindly upon Scalia. In September, SCOTUSblog’s Andrew Hamm reviewed two empirical studies evaluating the real-world effects of Melendez-Diaz. One found that the impact of the decision on lab analysts was “none to minimal.”
The ruling did trigger a small increase in subpoenas, but this “initial
impact … subsequently waned.” The other study found that many
defendants waive their right to make analysts testify and that forensic labs “have not found the burden intolerable.” Scalia had posited in his opinion that “the sky will not fall after
today’s decision”; he appears to have been correct, Kennedy’s dire
warnings notwithstanding. In fact, intervening events have only proved
the wisdom of his judgment. Recent crime lab scandals
have revealed that tens of thousands of people have been sentenced to
prison on the basis of falsified forensic reports. In Massachusetts, the
misdeeds of analysts Annie Dookhan and Sonja Farak alone
resulted in as many as 42,000 wrongful convictions. Defendants’
constitutional right to interrogate such analysts at trial to evaluate
their candor and competence has never been more vital. "
The entire post can be found at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c
