Comments on: Crime labs and the Confrontation Clause http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/10/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:38:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Cass Bentio http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/10/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/#comment-16108 Cass Bentio Sat, 17 May 2008 02:15:40 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/#comment-16108 I would just like to comment that out of the 4 times that you mentioned Melendez-Diaz, it was spelled incorrectly 3 times. It was fun when I had to cite to this blog for my law school writing competition. Have a nice day. I would just like to comment that out of the 4 times that you mentioned Melendez-Diaz, it was spelled incorrectly 3 times. It was fun when I had to cite to this blog for my law school writing competition.
Have a nice day.

]]> By: Jonathan Kirshbaum http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/10/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/#comment-12499 Jonathan Kirshbaum Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:26:32 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/#comment-12499 Sorry, just to clarify, the Rawlins case, mentioned in the previous comment, concerns a fingerprint comparison report. Sorry, just to clarify, the Rawlins case, mentioned in the previous comment, concerns a fingerprint comparison report.

]]> By: Jonathan Kirshbaum http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/10/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/#comment-12493 Jonathan Kirshbaum Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:53:33 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/#comment-12493 This is definitely a timely issue. There are currently four cases pending before the New York Court of Appeals raising the same issue. The cases concern four different types of reports introduced either at trial or at a sentencing enhancement proceeding: (a) fingerprint report introduced at trial (People v. Rawlins); (b) DNA lab report introduced at trial (People v. Meekins); (c) autopsy report introduced at trial (People v. Freycinet); and (d) fingerprint affidavit at a sentence enhancement proceeding (People v. Leon). The cases have not yet been calendared, but we anticipate that they will be heard sometime between January and March of next year. This is definitely a timely issue. There are currently four cases pending before the New York Court of Appeals raising the same issue. The cases concern four different types of reports introduced either at trial or at a sentencing enhancement proceeding: (a) fingerprint report introduced at trial (People v. Rawlins); (b) DNA lab report introduced at trial (People v. Meekins); (c) autopsy report introduced at trial (People v. Freycinet); and (d) fingerprint affidavit at a sentence enhancement proceeding (People v. Leon).

The cases have not yet been calendared, but we anticipate that they will be heard sometime between January and March of next year.

]]> By: Tim Holloway http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/10/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/#comment-12464 Tim Holloway Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:29:51 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/#comment-12464 Roger Friedman wrote: "The brief says this case is an appropriate vehicle because it is on direct review from the state court. Is this just wishful thinking or has there been some recognition by the Court that AEDPA complicates review?" Under Teague v. Lane, a federal court, including the Supreme Court, cannot apply a "new rule" in the context of a state inmate's habeas petition litigation under 28 USC 2254. On direct review of a state court conviction a "new rule" may be created and applied. Thus, appealing directly from the state court appellate system to the Supreme Court avoids this issue. However, I would question whether the certiorari petition seeks to create a "new rule." Regardless, the fact that the "new rule" issue is not involved in this matter is obviously better for the petitioner. Roger Friedman wrote: “The brief says this case is an appropriate vehicle because it is on direct review from the state court. Is this just wishful thinking or has there been some recognition by the Court that AEDPA complicates review?”

Under Teague v. Lane, a federal court, including the Supreme Court, cannot apply a “new rule” in the context of a state inmate’s habeas petition litigation under 28 USC 2254. On direct review of a state court conviction a “new rule” may be created and applied. Thus, appealing directly from the state court appellate system to the Supreme Court avoids this issue. However, I would question whether the certiorari petition seeks to create a “new rule.” Regardless, the fact that the “new rule” issue is not involved in this matter is obviously better for the petitioner.

]]> By: Roger Friedman http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/10/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/#comment-12458 Roger Friedman Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:54:16 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/#comment-12458 Oops, I meant George Washington, not Georgetown. Oops, I meant George Washington, not Georgetown.

]]> By: Roger Friedman http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/10/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/#comment-12457 Roger Friedman Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:46:55 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/crime-labs-and-the-confrontation-clause/#comment-12457 It is good and timely that this issue has been brought before the Court. Thanks to the Stanford Clinic for doing so. A question to the authors of the petition: The brief says this case is an appropriate vehicle because it is on direct review from the state court. Is this just wishful thinking or has there been some recognition by the Court that AEDPA complicates review? While I am commenting on cert petitions, let me respond to the AT&T petition filed earlier this week. This seems like a no-harm, no-foul case involving not Art. III but Rule 17. The cause of action exists, the injury and perpetrator are clear, the only questioin is whether the victims have transferred enough of their rights for the aggregator to bring suit in its own name and the only remedy is substitution of the individual PSPs for the aggregator. A question to Akin Gump: Ed Lazarus is on the brief, I thought he was a professor at Georgetown, has that changed or is there some special relationship? It is good and timely that this issue has been brought before the Court. Thanks to the Stanford Clinic for doing so. A question to the authors of the petition: The brief says this case is an appropriate vehicle because it is on direct review from the state court. Is this just wishful thinking or has there been some recognition by the Court that AEDPA complicates review?
While I am commenting on cert petitions, let me respond to the AT&T petition filed earlier this week. This seems like a no-harm, no-foul case involving not Art. III but Rule 17. The cause of action exists, the injury and perpetrator are clear, the only questioin is whether the victims have transferred enough of their rights for the aggregator to bring suit in its own name and the only remedy is substitution of the individual PSPs for the aggregator. A question to Akin Gump: Ed Lazarus is on the brief, I thought he was a professor at Georgetown, has that changed or is there some special relationship?

]]>