A DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES

Houston Chronicle Editorial
July 1, 2009

ACCOUNTABILITY
Supreme Court’s welcome ruling supports defendants’ rights to confront witnesses

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling, one that upholds the right of a criminal defendant, during trial, to confront the analyst who prepared a forensic report if the prosecution plans to use that report as evidence.

The ruling, in the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, confirmed the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, which provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

It was no surprise that Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was the author of the court’s 2004 decision, in Crawford v. Washington, which unanimously upheld that same principle.

Melendez-Diaz was a narrowly won decision (5–4), and one that will be revisited and clarified. But it was the right decision, one in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed its concern for the rights of criminal defendants, who are often left without adequate resources to defend themselves.

Nowhere has that lack been more obvious in recent years than in Houston, as evidenced by the Houston Police Department’s scandal-ridden crime lab, whose egregious mistakes, omissions and sloppy procedures have led to horrendous miscarriages of justice.

Last December, Ricardo Rachell was released from prison after serving six years for sexually assaulting a child, cleared by DNA that had been available all along — a victim of shoddy police work and inadequate representation.

Just last week, another Houstonian, George Rodriguez, was awarded $5 million by a federal grand jury for the "deliberate indifference" of the city to discredited evidence from the crime lab which led to his conviction. He spent 17 years in prison for a kidnapping and rape he did not commit.

Defense attorneys applauded the decision: Noted Houston attorney Stanley Schneider called the decision "outstanding. An individual’s right to freedom is the most precious thing we have, and the right to cross-examination is the backbone of our system of justice."

But many prosecutors, and the court minority, complained that it would place an undue strain on forensic analysts and prosecutors. Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, called it "a train wreck," reported the New York Times.

But Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos welcomed the decision, noting that since taking office last January, she has made good on her pledge to pass on all offense reports to defense attorneys and has proposed the creation, she told the Chronicle, of a "regional, independent crime lab, staffed by qualified scientists to meet the forensic demands of our justice system."

Scalia pointed out that many states have already adopted the confrontation clause, saying "Perhaps the best indication the sky will not fall after today’s decision is that it has not done so already."

As forensic science expands, so do the ranks of experts who interpret it. It’s reassuring to know they’ll be held accountable.