Supreme Court: Defendants Have the Right to Cross-Examine Forensic Experts
The Supreme Court ruled today that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants the right to cross examine the scientists who issue forensics reports that are entered into evidence. The breakdown of the 5-4 ruling was interesting, with Justice Scalia's majority opinion joined by Justices Thomas, Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens. Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer dissented.
Most interesting is that both the majority and dissenting opinions noted recent reports exposing the disturbingly high rate of error in areas of forensic science once thought to be foolproof. Scalia's majority opinion states pretty matter-of-factly that the Confrontation Clause preserves the right to question forensic experts, and that the Court's decision would have been the same even "if all analysts possessed the scientific acumen of Mme. Curie and the veracity of Mother Theresa."
But there's a pretty good chance that in the coming years we'll see more challenges to the reliability and admissibility of various types of forensic testimony. So it's encouraging to see that the justices are both aware of and have specifically taken note of the problems with the system.
Reason's prior covearge of forensics in the courtroom here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
An interesting 5-4 split, with some liberals and some conservatives on each side of the decision.
Kind of bothersome that it wasn't 9-0, that it was that close to going the wrong way.
Scalia and Thomas read the document to mean what it says. I will take that any day over a "living Constitution".
John,
I'm not sure about Thomas after today's Advil decision. That was a really shitty dissent.
Also note that Souter is on the side of the angels on this one, so Sotomayor's views on this issue all of the sudden become important (especially since, as Rad Bal notes, there will likely be follow-ups).
It is going to take me awhile to wrap my head around that.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants the right to cross examine the scientists who issue forensics reports that are entered into evidence.
It is a sad commentary that this was even at issue, that every judge in the country didn't automatically say "well, of course you can cross-examine the author of any evidence entered against you".
Even sadder is that only a bare majority of SCOTUS can bring themselves to support what should be self-evident.
I'm thinking that Governor guy was on to something. I'm going to look into Buenos Aires as an "early retirement" destination.
Weirder to me even that the bedfellows on either side of the opinion was the fact that I was reading a dissent in a 5-4 judgement that was authored by Kennedy.
"I'm not sure about Thomas after today's Advil decision. That was a really shitty dissent."
I'm not sure about Thomas after today's Advil decision. That was a really empathetic dissent.
FTFY
"I'm not sure about Thomas after today's Advil decision. That was a really shitty dissent"
I haven't read the decision yet. My guess is that Thomas made a value decision about what is "reasonable" for a school admin to do.
They are not perfect, but when the document says something plainly, Thomas and Scalia will usually read it that way.
I'm thinking that Governor guy was on to something. I'm going to look into Buenos Aires as an "early retirement" destination.
Make sure you're still married while you do it! Then you'll be a total shithead like those crappy judges.
I'm not sure about Thomas after today's Advil decision. That was a really shitty dissent
I was thinking the same thing, though I guess he slightly redeems himself here. On the whole I still think I'd take him over any other jurist on the bench right now.
In my opinion, however, the real question to ask is would this have been 5-4 the other way if Sotomayor was already on the bench? I'll wager a Coke that the answer is yes.
Does this finally mean that we'll be able to cross examine that Mississippi medical examiner named Steven Hayne finally?
Now that would kick ass, someone's gonna have to get a few of his old cases into court pronto.
PS - Wrong thread I believe Zoltan.
I'm writing from the National Academies. It has been noted that the opinion also quotes from the recent report 'Strengthening Forensic Science'(http://tr.im/pLWW). We encourage you all to read the report in hopes that it will enhance the conversation.
They are not perfect, but when the document says something plainly, Thomas and Scalia will usually read it that way.
Unless it has to do with the War on Drugs, in which case Scalia suddenly becomes dyslexic.
the Court's decision would have been the same even "if all analysts possessed the scientific acumen of Mme. Curie and the veracity of Mother Theresa. Gil Grissom"
Fixed.
The breakdown of the 5-4 ruling was interesting, with Justice Scalia's majority opinion joined by Justices Thomas, Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens. Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer dissented.
It is going to take me awhile to wrap my head around that.
They should start putting the R/D/I next to the judges like they do with the members of Congress.
For some reason the breakdown of this doesn't surprise me. I would expect Scalia and Thomas to be on the right side, and Roberts and Alito in the wrong. Breyer has always struck me as more flaky than the other liberal justices, so it comes as no real shock to me that he's wrong. The only person whose decision surprises me is Kennedy... I usually like the way he decides, but I'm sometimes confused about whether he really has a consistent jurisprudence.
OK I can see people are having trouble deciding what to think about these justices. Let me help:
Roberts - Statist
Stevens - Loser
Scalia - Asshole
Kennedy - Whore
Souter - Idiot
Thomas - Black conservative
Ginsburg - Jew
Breyer - Liberal
Alito - Lackey
They should start putting the R/D/I next to the judges like they do with the members of Congress.
R = Retarded.
D = Dyslexic.
I = Illiterate.
Like that?
Two correct decisions in one day?? Someone keep track of this. If they start doing this on a regular basis, Obama may try to pull another Walpin. Yeah, yeah, I know technically he can't fire a SCOTUS judge, but I'm sure he's got people looking into it.
Roberts - Statist
Stevens - Loser
Scalia - Asshole
Kennedy - Whore
Souter - Idiot
Thomas - Black conservative
Ginsburg - Jew
Breyer - Liberal
Alito - Lackey
It's like the nine Dwarfs of politics. Too bad Obama can't be Snow White for obvious reasons (he's blackish).
I'm not sure about Thomas after today's Advil decision. That was a really shitty dissent.
Someone more cynical than me suggested that someone MUST dissent and Thomas drew the short straw on that one.
But isn't there a new professionalism in forensics?
Someone more cynical than me suggested that someone MUST dissent and Thomas drew the short straw on that one.
There are plenty of 9-0 decisions even in recent SCOTUS history, so it seems that whoever that was had overdosed on cynicism and it has adversely affected his/her reasoning centers.
My God people, you don't pay attention to the Supreme Court at all. It's EXACTLY the same majority as in Apprendi, Kyllo v. United States, and a host of other similar rulings.
Why is ANYONE surprised at this majority? It's an entirely typical majority on these sorts of criminal justice cases where there's a textual basis for criminal protection but some people believe that the Constitutional text, if applied to its limit, would be impractical.
Justices Breyer and Kennedy line up with the pragmatists, as do fairly pragmatic Roberts (replacing Reinquist) and Alito; they're willing to balance away a right to other concerns.
Justices Scalia and Thomas follow their "if the textual right exists, it's absolute (but if it's not in the text, you have no rights)" rule and line up with Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens in applying the rule to its utmost.
Anyone who is surprised by this majority just hasn't been paying attention. I'm disappointed in all of you.
Anyone surprised by Thomas's opinion in the Advil case is also forgetting Morse v. Frederick, the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, among others. Justice Thomas doesn't believe that the Constitution's text or tradition protects minor children in school. And certainly in any case, if the other justices are going to allow other sorts of searches, he's not going to see a reason to draw a line between one type of search and another.
"... the veracity of Mother Theresa."
Wasn't she the nun who privately admitted that she didn't believe in God? Just askin', Nino, just askin'. But two good decisions in one day, I'm not complainin'. But just skip that "returned to the battlefield" shit, OK?
Sorry, I apologize, I forgot Kyllo for a second. Kyllo had Stevens and Breyer switched. But the same Apprendi majority has been showing up all the time recently. Sometimes one or two other justices flip, but if you look at Ring v. Arizona, Blakely v. Washington, etc.
It's a highly important line of cases having to do with criminal defendents' rights.
Same majority in Arizona v. Gant, which I know that Reason covered.
(That's the searching a car when not a threat case.)
BTW, this is one reason to be concerned about Sotomayor. Some reports indicate that she may be anti-Apprendi. If that's true, then Arizona v. Gant, Apprendi, Blakely v. Washington, and Melendez-Diaz today all go the other way, because Justice Souter is pro-Apprendi.
Also the pro-jury trial part of United States v. Booker.
Sometimes but not always. Consider Kyllo v. United States. (Thermal imaging to find heat lamps used to grow pot.)
There is a disconnect between this decision and the Osborne decision.
Wait a minute. Both sides admit trouble with forensic evidence? So the dissent was saying; "The science may be phoney and the experts might be lying, but you still can't question them."? Do I have that right?
Wait, what the fuck...
Defendants didn't have the right to cross-examine forensic experts? My ignorance of the law and law itself is disturbing.
P.S. yay for thomas.
Was there ever a hitnrun post about "Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Eric Holder, Jr, Attorney General, et al."?
My google-fu is failing me if there was. I'd appreciate a link.
Good point, John Thacker. I remembered the same majority too, but couldn't remember the names of the cases. Thomas gets a point back for being wrong in the Advil case.
Isn't having to constantly testify in court going to eat up a lot of the forensic guys time? isn't evidence commonly sent to labs far away from where the crime took place? There's already a back log and a shortage of experts this seems like it will make the situation worse. After all the defense can already call in it's own experts to refute the lab reports.
Isn't having to constantly testify in court going to eat up a lot of the forensic guys time?
Being incarcerated because the forensic guy lied or screwed up eats up a lot of the defendant's time.
The breakdown of the 5-4 ruling was interesting, with Justice Scalia's majority opinion joined by Justices Thomas, Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens. Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer dissented.
I just want to point out that this breakdown isn't that interesting. It's the most idealistic justices in the majority and the more pragmatic justices in the dissent.
"Isn't having to constantly testify in court going to eat up a lot of the forensic guys time?"
Yeah: Having to testify eats up a lot of witnesses' time. Perhaps we should do all trials completely based on signed statements that the guy is guilty. That's a cheaper nd easier way to nail people, right?
Such cross-examination is valid on the face of it. but I wonder now that it's "out in the open" how rapidly it will degenerate into CSI tutorials. "Would you kindly explain again why you used a forceps and not a spatula?" "Your Honor, the defendant is badgering the expert!"
If I was a defense lawyer, I would only spend time cross examining forensic evidence if I thought there were problems with it. Why dwell on evidence that looks bad for my client, for no reason, in front of the jury? If I was a prosecutor, that wanted to convict no matter what (basically all of them), I would not want my forensic expert to testify if I thought there were problems with the report.
With that bias in the system, to say the forensic expert wouldn't have to testify, assumes every forensic report is perfect.
Badly done forensic reports will be scrutinized as they should. This will probably lead to better forensic reports. But the idea that every report is going to lead to testimony is just being lazy. Roberts really seems to want to do nothing ever. Every ruling or dissent he gives seems to be, "it is too much work".
Isn't having to constantly testify in court going to eat up a lot of the forensic guys time?
Too frickin' bad. Our criminal justice system isn't supposed to function for the convenience of the State. If its overloaded, perhaps we should look at getting rid of some of the victimless crimes, no? If they focussed on actual crimes of violence and property crimes, I'm betting the prosecution would have all the resources they need.
Jesus do you people even finish reading posts? I said the defense can call their own experts to refute the lab report already. The forensics report doesn't make any assertion about any particular defendants quilt or innocence. A report may be submitted months or even years before a suspect is even caught or brought to trial. What if the forensics guy dies before the case comes to trail, are they just going to throw out the report? Let me repeat, THE DEFENSE CAN ALREADY HIRE THEIR OWN EXPERTS TO REFUTE THE FORENSICS REPORT!
"""THE DEFENSE CAN ALREADY HIRE THEIR OWN EXPERTS TO REFUTE THE FORENSICS REPORT!"""
If they can afford it, and that shouldn't be a factor. Anyone who presents evidence at trial should be available for cross examination including questioning of their credentials.
So you're going to bring in the guy who did the autopsy, the one who did the fiber analysis, the one who did the bullet match, the one who tested the blood, et., etc., etc.? What if there were 10 people who contributed to the forensics report? As I mentioned before what if it is a 40 year old murder case and some of those people aren't available? Just let the suspect go? A report is just that, a report. I'm not even sure it's even "evidence". It's just an analysis OF the evidence. The defense can have that same evidence (hairs, fibers, bullets,blood) analyzed by their own people and put up their conclusions against the other. I'm just trying to make the point that this seems like an unworkable logistical nightmare to have forensic technicians constantly having to leave work to testify at trials. How is the FBI crime lab going to get any work done if they have to go all over the country testifying all the time?
Also note that this very case was a drug case, so your calumny against Scalia appears inappropriate.
"""Also note that this very case was a drug case, so your calumny against Scalia appears inappropriate.""""
Oh yeah, this one case redeems him from his past. Please.
Ice, are you familiar with the forinsic work of Haynes and West? You can start here
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131772.html
Of course I am, but your point is moot since those guys were put ON THE STAND by the prosecution! They were also CROSS EXAMINED in court!
His past? I gave two examples, this one and Kyllo, where the Drug War made no difference. I assume that the case that you're thinking about that went the other way is Gonzales v. Raich. Am I right? Do you have another one in mind? Else I would think that two examples against your point and one for hardly proves your point, nor justifies your sweeping statement.
I recently served on a jury for a DUI charge. The company that makes the breathalyzer refuses to release the software to forensic analysis, so we threw out those results and came back with a Not Guilty. Why the police use that machine when the DA knows it will often be challenged in court is a question I will have for some time. It just seems obvious that evidence should be allowed to be challenged if it gets presented in a trial.