| The full transcript can be found here (thanks Neil) and you can listen to it here.
I also will be using scotusblog.com as a resource. It is a fantastic site. The only reason why I know it exists is because of BMG.
In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, Jeffery Fisher, appellant, argues that:
In Crawford v. Washington, this Court made clear that the right to confrontation, at its core, is a protection against a system of trial by affidavit.
In my own words, if evidence is entered and the evidence is say test results of what a substance is and maybe where it came from, that evidence cannot be just "mailed" in. The defendent's counsel has the right to cross examine the human being who did the testing. Not his supervisor, but the person who actually ran the test.
From Lyle Denniston at scotusblog.com:
The case, at its core, is simple: is a crime lab report a form of testimony, so that the prosecution may not use it at trial to buttress its case unless the technician or chemist who prepared it is at the trial to defend the test results under cross-examination?
Ok, with that out of the way, lets talk about AG Coakley who represented Massachusetts as the highest lawyer in our land. She was fighting for test results and the like to be able to be admitted into evidence without the actual lab tech having to testify.
She starts off arguing that certificates of drug tests are not "testimonial statements" and "thereby not covered by the confrontation clause".
Ms. Coakley: Because clearly, the kinds of affidavits that are the subject of Confrontation Clause analysis could not be submitted by that. I think this is an exception to that. And so --...
Justice Souter: Well, then that's what you have got to explain to me. Why is it an exception?
First mistake. This is supposed to be the argument. This is what seemingly she is there to argue. Again, not very experienced with this, but I would assume judges don't like to tell lawyers what things they should be arguing.
From scotusblog.com:
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley had trouble from the outset drawing distinctions between eyewitness testimony for which confrontation is required and crime lab reports, as Justice David H. Souter, along with Scalia, pushed the point. She also failed to impress with a key point both in her brief and her oral argument: the Court has never had a confrontation case involving a lab report.
She continues to not impress and actual get to a point where she throws out the wrong facts and Justice Roberts has to correct her while she is speaking, again from scotusblog.com:
Before long, Justice Kennedy was stressing to Coakley the arguments he said she had to be making, and mildly chastized her when she did not do so. When he asked her to comment on why California was not having problems with confronton over lab reports, she at first responded that California was one of 35 states supporting Massachusetts in the case (only to have Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., point out that she was in error on that). Then she said she had no information on California, but contended that confrontation of the kind would be "an undue burden" in Massachusetts.
Her closing and final arguments are also weak and she is "sharply retorted" by Justice Kennedy. You should listen to the audio as it is fairly clear to me that he is less than impressed with her argument that it would be a bad strategic decision of a prosecutor to rely on a lab report in a particular instance. Which of course, I am not sure why she is even arguing at this point, but ok... from scotusblog.com:
As she was preparing to close, the Chief Justice asked for Coakley's reaction if a lab test report was the central issue in a case, she said it would be "a bad strategic decision" to rely only on a report of that kind. But Kennedy sharply retorted: "That's a non-reason."
Massachusetts lost the case 5-4.
Whether you are supporting Martha Coakley or still undecided(I am supporting Mike Capuano) we should be looking at each candidate on their records and values. I know where Mike Capuano stands and I know what he values because of his record in Congress. If this case is part of Coakley's record, I will say that I am unimpressed and if voters are considering sending her across the street to the Senate, they should consider her performance on the biggest stage their is for her and every attorney. This was the high point of her career as a lawyer and she struck out IMO. Lets keep her where she is, so she can become a better AG first.
Also, as a women I am offended as to why a candidate is a better candidate than another because of gender. It is nonsensical and lowers anyone's standing if that is one of the reasons someone is voting for any candidate in any race. |
