Justice Scalia also authored the United States Supreme Court Confrontation Clause opinion for the seven-justice majority in Crawford v. Washington. Two justices filed an opinion concurring in the judgment but differing in their analysis. Justice Scalia wrote in...
Justice Scalia concluded with the following in relevant part: The arguments advanced to avoid this rather straightforward application of Crawford are rejected. Respondent's claim that the analysts are not subject to confrontation because they are not "accusatory"...
Another seminal case dealing with the Confrontation Clause is Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. There, Justice Scalia wrote for the 5-4 majority in relevant part: At petitioner's state-court drug trial, the prosecution introduced certificates of state laboratory...
Justice Ginsburg continued in relevant part: The comparative reliability of an analyst's testimonial report does not dispense with the Clause. The analysts who write reports introduced as evidence must be made available for confrontation even if they have “the...
The late Justice Ginsburg continued on behalf of the 5-4 majority of this plurality opinion in relevant part: If an out-of-court statement is testimonial, it may not be introduced against the accused at trial unless the witness who made the statement is unavailable...
The Court continued in relevant part: In lieu of Caylor, the State called another analyst, Razatos, to validate the report. Razatos was familiar with the testing device used to analyze Bullcoming's blood and with the laboratory's testing procedures, but had neither...
The following cases all address the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. They are particularly relevant to cases in which the prosecution seeks to admit the results of laboratory testing. This is common in cases of alleged “drug driving: in which a urine and/or...
On March 4, 2024 a three-judge appellate panel decided the Middlesex County case of State v. Zaire Cromedy. The principal issue before the Court under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j) concerned whether certain first-degree weapons offenses were exempt from mandatory parole...
Justice Alito concluded with the following: Under Missouri law, “the standard for determining whether a juror should be excused for cause is whether his or her views would ‘prevent or substantially impair’ the performance of duties as a juror.” State v. Ramsey, 864 S....
Justice Alito continued: Second, the court concluded that the jurors had been dismissed, not based on their religious status, but based on their religious beliefs. And this distinction, it said, made all the difference because, in its view, while dismissals based on a...