Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts

Last updated
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 10, 2008
Decided June 25, 2009
Full case nameLuis E. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
Docket no. 07-591
Citations557 U.S. 305 ( more )
129 S.Ct. 2527; 174 L. Ed. 2d 314; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4734
Case history
Priorguilty; appeal rejected, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 1114, 870 N.E.2d 676 (2007)(unpublished); denying review, 449 Mass. 1113, 874 N.E.2d 407 (2007).
Holding
Sworn affidavits are testimonial in nature, violate the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington (2004), and do not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The requirements of the Confrontation Clause may not be relaxed because they make the prosecution's task burdensome. "Notice and demand" statutes are constitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Stevens, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentKennedy, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Alito
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VI; Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. [2] While the court ruled that the then-common practice [3] of submitting these reports without testimony was unconstitutional, it also held that so called "notice-and-demand" statutes are constitutional. A state would not violate the Constitution through a "notice-and-demand" statute by both putting the defendant on notice that the prosecution would submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the scientist and also giving the defendant sufficient time to raise an objection. [4]

Contents

Background

In 2001, Boston police received information from an informant regarding suspicious activity at a Kmart store. The informant stated that an employee repeatedly received phone calls at work, after which he would leave the store, get into a blue sedan, and return a few minutes later. Police set up surveillance and witnessed this activity occur. Police detained and searched the employee finding four clear plastic bags containing a white powder substance, alleged to be cocaine. Police detained and searched the passengers of the blue sedan including Luis Melendez-Diaz, then transported them to police headquarters in a police car. During the trip, police observed the arrestees fidgeting and making furtive movements. Upon arrival at the station, police searched the interior of the police car and found 19 smaller plastic bags containing a white powder, again alleged to be cocaine. In accordance with Massachusetts law, police submitted all alleged contraband for chemical testing. Melendez-Diaz was charged with distribution and drug trafficking of cocaine in an amount between 14 and 28 grams under the Massachusetts Controlled Substances Act, [5] a felony punishable by not less than three years imprisonment.

At trial, the prosecution placed into evidence the bags seized from the police car. It also submitted three "certificates of analysis" or affidavits showing the results of the forensic analysis performed on samples of the seized white powder. The affidavits reported the weight of the seized bags and claimed the substance found was cocaine. The affidavits were sworn before a notary public in accordance with Massachusetts law. [6] Melendez-Diaz objected to their admission asserting that the Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington required the forensic analyst to testify in person. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the affidavits as prima facie evidence of the positive presence of narcotics.

A jury trial found Melendez-Diaz guilty. He appealed, contending inter alia that the admission of the affidavits violated his Sixth Amendment right to be confronted by those witnesses who would testify against him. The Massachusetts Appeals Court rejected the claim under Massachusetts precedent which held that admission of these affidavits did not violate the Confrontation clause. [7] The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied review. [8]

Melendez-Diaz then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

Oral arguments

The case was argued by Jeffrey L. Fisher on behalf of Melendez-Diaz and Martha Coakley on behalf of Massachusetts. [9] Both attorneys focused their attention on Justice Kennedy, the 'swing-vote' on the Court, in their arguments.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in which Justices Stevens, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Breyer and Justice Alito joined.

The Court emphasized that its ruling was a continuation but little more than an application of its holding in Crawford v. Washington (2004).

Affidavits

The Court held that the certificates constituted testimonial evidence i.e. they were prepared for the purpose of a later criminal trial. Citing Crawford v. Washington, a witness's testimony is inadmissible unless he or she appears at trial, or if unavailable, the court afforded the defendant the opportunity to cross examine the witness. The court reiterated the non-exclusive class of statements which are testimonial in nature:

Various formulations of this core class of testimonial statements exist: ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially. 541 U. S. 36, 51–52 (emphasis added)

The Court found that the forensic analyst who tested the contraband substance and reported that it was cocaine was a witness for purposes of the Confrontation Clause. Because the trial court did not give Melendez-Diaz the opportunity to cross-examine the analyst, his right of Confrontation was violated.

Chemical test affidavits

The Court rejected Massachusetts' argument that the analyst's reports were not accusatory. The respondent had argued that the reports were not accusatory because they did not implicate the defendant in a crime alone, but only when taken together with other evidence which linked the defendant to the contraband. The Court rejected this argument noting that the reports proved an essential element of the crime. The Court cited United States v. Kirby (1899). In Kirby, the Defendant was charged with receiving stolen property. The evidence at issue proved only that the property was stolen, but not the other essential element of the crime, that Kirby had received it. The Court noted that the Kirby decision was part of a long established rule that evidence that proves only one essential element of a crime is nevertheless accusatory for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.

Scientific analysts

The Court noted that the Confrontation Clause creates two kinds of witnesses: those whom the prosecution is obligated to call, and those whom the defense has the discretion to call. The Court rejected the argument that the analyst was not a conventional witness because he or she recorded the immediate results of a chemical test rather than recalled a historical event. Even though evidence may be so contemporaneous that it meets the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, it may nevertheless be a violation of the Confrontation Clause. The Court referred to the companion case to Davis v. Washington , where it ruled that statements to police immediately after an incident of domestic violence were "non-testimonial" and part of "an on-going emergency" and therefore admissible. [10]

Scientific evidence

The Court rejected the argument that the neutral and especially reliable nature of the forensic chemical testing would exclude it from the confrontation requirement. This would have been a return to the reasoning of the overruled decision in Ohio v. Roberts . [11] Roberts had held that certain out of court testimony that had "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness" would not violate the Confrontation Clause. Additionally, the Court noted that "Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation." It cited a study of forensic laboratories where analysts would falsely record results of tests never performed because of the high volume demands of law enforcement. The Court held that an opportunity for confrontation would give the forensic witness the opportunity to recant a previously falsified report. The court cited one particular study in which invalid forensic testimony contributed to a false conviction in 60% of the cases where defendants had achieved exoneration. [12]

Forensic affidavits

The Court rejected Massachusetts' claim that the forensic affidavits met the business records exception to the hearsay rule. [13] A business document will be inadmissible under the exception when "calculated for use essentially in the court, not in the business." [14] The Court analyzed the narrow exception of a clerk certificate authenticating official records. This certificate was limited in that it could only claim the authenticity of the record as official, but speak nothing of its contents. The Court drew a distinction between this exception and the case before it. The forensic analyst was creating a record whereas the clerk was authenticating a record already in existence. Finally, it explained the relationship between the Confrontation Clause and the Business Records Exception. Citing Crawford, the court stated that most business records will escape Sixth Amendment scrutiny not because they meet the exception to the hearsay rule, but because they are non-testimonial in nature. A record prepared in the ordinary course of business will necessarily not have been created for the purpose of proving a fact at trial.

Confrontation Clause

The Court drew a distinction between the Compulsory Process Clause and the Confrontation Clause. Even though Melendez-Diaz had the opportunity to call the forensic analyst as a witness at his option, this was no substitute for the protections of the right of confrontation. This would shift the burden of producing adverse witnesses on the defendant rather than on the prosecution. The Court agreed with the scenario proposed by the petitioner: that the prosecution would present affidavits to the judge ex parte and wait for the defense to subpoena whom he chose.

Finally, the Court addressed the argument proposed by the Massachusetts and the amici that a finding for the petitioner would place a substantial burden on the courts. [15] The Court reassured respondents that "the sky [would] not fall." It noted that several states had already passed Constitutional statutes that satisfied the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. Specifically, the Court held that the so-called "notice-and-demand" statutes require the prosecution to provide notice to the defendant of its intent to use an analyst’s report as evidence at trial, after which the defendant is given a period of time in which he may object to the admission of the evidence absent the analyst’s appearance live at trial" and that these would be Constitutional. These statutes are not a burden shift, but merely require the defense to invoke an objection prior to trial. Notice-and-demand statutes are procedural and merely regulate the timing of objections. The Court also took note of usual practice of defense attorneys to stipulate to the results of drug analyses as a matter of trial strategy (e.g. not wishing to draw attention to the certainty of the results or draw the ire of the judge). It reasoned that the practice would continue and the burdens predicted by the dissent and amici for respondent would not materialize. The Court stressed that the requirements of the Confrontation Clause are "binding" and not to be disregarded.

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Miranda</i> warning Notification given by U.S. police to criminal suspects on their rights while in custody

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. These rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Sixth Amendment. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, which provides criminal defendants with the right to confront witnesses against them, did not bar the use of one-way closed-circuit television to present testimony by an alleged child sex abuse victim.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable may not be admitted without cross-examination.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings. Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.

Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and written by Justice Antonin Scalia that established the test used to determine whether a hearsay statement is "testimonial" for Confrontation Clause purposes. Two years prior to its publication, in Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” The Supreme Court declined to define "testimonial" in Crawford which left lower courts without any guidance. However, in Davis v. Washington, along with Hammon v. Indiana which was consolidated with Davis, the Court clarified the meaning of "testimonial" and articulated a new standard.

In the law of evidence, a dying declaration is testimony that would normally be barred as hearsay but may in common law nonetheless be admitted as evidence in criminal law trials because it constituted the last words of a dying person. The rationale is that someone who is dying or believes death to be imminent would have less incentive to fabricate testimony, and as such, the hearsay statement carries with it some reliability.

Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution, federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

Evidence-based prosecution refers to a collection of techniques utilized by prosecutors in domestic violence cases to convict abusers without the cooperation of an alleged victim. It is widely practiced within the American legal system by specialized prosecutors and state's attorneys and relies on utilizing a variety of evidence to prove the guilt of an abuser with limited or adverse participation by the abuser's victim, or even no participation at all.

Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that for testimonial statements to be admissible under the forfeiture exception to hearsay, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.

Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court further developed the "primary purpose" test to determine whether statements are "testimonial" for Confrontation Clause purposes. In Bryant, the Court expanded upon the test first articulated in Davis v. Washington, "addressing for the first time circumstances in which the 'ongoing emergency' discussed in Davis extended to a potential threat to the respond police and the public at large."

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), is a significant 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extend to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause.

United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case that determined the constitutionality of deporting aliens who might give testimony in criminal alien smuggling prosecutions. Because deporting alien witnesses might take away a testimony that would be both “material and favorable” to the defendant, it gives rise to a potential motion from the defense to dismiss the indictment under the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186 (1987), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution's Sixth Amendment barred the admission, in a joint trial, of a non-testifying codefendant's confession incriminating the defendant, even if the defendant's own confession was admitted against him.

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness, but was blocked by Texas courts because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they would be likely to lie for each other on the stand.

Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. Taylor was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness, even if that is an essential witness for the defendant, a limitation of the broad right to present a defense recognized in Washington v. Texas (1967).

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state may not enforce its rules of evidence, such as rules excluding hearsay, in a fashion that disallows a criminal defendant from presenting reliable exculpatory evidence and thus denies the defendant a fair trial.

Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its decision, the Court ruled on when a criminal defendant who opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence also opens the door to evidence that would otherwise be excluded by the Confrontation Clause.

References

  1. ↑ Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ following the reasoning of Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
  3. ↑ See generally, Amicus Brief for the Thirty-Five States and DC
  4. ↑ Citing per e.g. Ga. Code Ann. §35–3–154.1(2006); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 38.41, §4 (Vernon2005); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2925.51(C) (West 2006).
  5. ↑ Ch. 94C, §§32A, 32E(b)(1)
  6. ↑ Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 111, §13
  7. ↑ See, Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279, 283–285, 827 N. E. 2d 701, 705–706 (2005).
  8. ↑ 449 Mass. 1113, 874 N. E. 2d 407 (2007).
  9. ↑ ScotusBlog, Argument analysis: As Kennedy goes…, by Lyle Denniston Archived 2010-01-19 at the Wayback Machine
  10. ↑ 547 U.S. 813, 830 (2006).
  11. ↑ Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980)
  12. ↑ citing, Garrett, Brandon L.; Neufeld, Peter J. (2009). "Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions". Virginia Law Review . 95 (1): 1–97 [p. 14]. JSTOR   25475240.
  13. ↑ See, Fed. Rule Evid. 803(6).
  14. ↑ Citing, Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U. S. 109, 114 (1943).
  15. ↑ See particularly, Amicus Brief for the Thirty-Five States and DC, p. 25-27.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.