Chicago DUI lawyer comments on the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz

Well it looks like the accused's right to confrontation is putting DUI and drug cases at risk.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause requires the appearance of lab analysts.

June 26, Washington, D.C.

Crime laboratory reports may not be used against criminal defendants at trial unless the analysts responsible for creating them give testimony and subject themselves to cross-examination, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a 5-to-4 decision.

The confrontation clause may make the prosecution of criminals more burdensome, but that is equally true of the right to trial by jury and the privilege against self-incrimination,'' Justice Scalia wrote.

''The sky will not fall after today's decision,'' he added.

The decision came in the wake of a wave of scandals at crime laboratories that included hundreds of tainted cases in Michigan, Texas and West Virginia. William C. Thompson, a professor of criminology at the University of California, Irvine, said those scandals proved that live testimony from analysts was needed to explore potential shortcomings in laboratory reports.

''The person can be interrogated about the process, about the meaning of the document,'' Professor Thompson said. ''The lab report itself cannot be interrogated to establish the strengths and limitations of the analysis.''

In February, the National Academy of Sciences issued a sweeping critique of the nation's crime labs. It concluded, for instance, that forensic scientists for law enforcement agencies ''sometimes face pressure to sacrifice appropriate methodology for the sake of expediency.''

Cross-examination of witnesses, Justice Scalia wrote, ''is designed to weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well.'' He added that the Constitution would require allowing defendants to confront witnesses even if ''all analysts always possessed the scientific acumen of Mme. Curie and the veracity of Mother Teresa.''

I'd asked some prosecutors and defense attorneys how they thought Melendez-Diaz would play out in Illinois, most think it will not change things here. It is already significantly changing things in other states however:

July 20, Fairfax, VA

There's a call for a special session of the General Assembly in Virginia, after a Supreme Court ruling has put dozens of drunk driving and drug cases in jeopardy.

The ruling, handed down last month, forbids lab reports to be used as evidence in drug and alcohol cases unless a lab technician actually testifies in court. It has already led to dismissals on several drug and DUI cases.

In a letter to Governor Tim Kaine, Cuccinelli says, "There is a need to act quickly to avoid very significant problems once some ongoing cases start to run up against speedy trial limitations as a result of continuances that are currently being requested and granted."

Cuccinelli wants the governor to call a special General Assembly session to change the law.

It's funny how some of us claiming to love America run to change the laws when the Constitution gets in the way of how we think justice should be meted out.