Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
Disclosure: Akin Gump served as co-counsel for the petitioner.
Issue: Whether a state forensic analyst's laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is "testimonial" evidence subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington (2004).
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia on June 25, 2009.
- Looking back at predictions in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (Andrew Hamm, September 7, 2017)
- The last two days in plain English (Lisa Tucker, January 27, 2010)
- A Boumediene sequel bypassed (Lyle Denniston, January 25, 2010)
- A limit on Confrontation rights? (Lyle Denniston, January 8, 2010)
- Analysis: Is Melendez-Diaz already endangered? (Lyle Denniston, June 29, 2009)
- Analysis: Law need not bow to chemistry (Lyle Denniston, June 25, 2009)
- Outstanding OT08 cases (Kristina Moore, June 19, 2009)
- Argument analysis: As Kennedy goes... (Lyle Denniston, November 10, 2008)
- Argument Preview: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (Lyle Denniston, November 8, 2008)
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Law Professors in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Richard D. Friedman in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Association of Federal Defenders, and the National College for DUI Defense in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the National Innocence Network in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the United States in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the National District Attorneys Association and District, Prosecuting, and County Attorneys in Support of Respondent