U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Confronting Science: Melendez-Diaz and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment

NCJ Number
231559
Journal
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 79 Issue: 8 Dated: August 2010 Pages: 24-32
Author(s)
Craig C. King, J.D.
Date Published
August 2010
Length
9 pages
Annotation
This article examines the implications for prosecutors of the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, which held that the practice of using evidence affidavits in lieu of in-person testimony by forensic examiners violates the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Abstract
The sixth amendment's confrontation clause provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The Melendez-Diaz decision provides additional clarity on the use of live testimony over the introduction of testimonial documents. Certain circumstances, such as the laboratory reports prepared for prosecution, require a person to take the stand and be subject to cross examination, instead of submitting the testimonial document. Determining when a document is testimonial is a new issue that lower courts are still exploring on a case-by-case basis. Defendants have asserted Melendez-Diaz violations regarding the admission of varied types of records maintained by police departments. Defendants have claimed the right to confront persons who have performed tests whose results have been introduced as evidence in court. This has included challenges to DNA results when a technician other than the one who conducted the test testified and the report was admitted. The Appellate Court of Illinois rejected this assertion, explaining that confrontation was satisfied by the testifying technician who interpreted the result of the admitted report on the stand. The court reasoned that because the witness was a qualified technician able to testify about the report, there was no need to call the actual testing technician. Also, the confrontation clause and Melendez-Diaz do not apply in probation revocation hearings, making probation reports admissible without the testimony of the preparer. 53 notes