High court rules forensic analysts must appear

ByABC News
June 25, 2009, 11:36 PM

WASHINGTON -- A narrowly divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that when prosecutors introduce drug, blood or other forensic reports at trial, the analyst who prepared the report must testify.

The admission of a report, without testimony and an opportunity to question the preparer, violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him, the court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

"Confrontation is designed to weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. "Serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials."

The case could have great consequences nationwide because of the increasing reliance by prosecutors on lab evidence, whether it be traditional drug and ballistics, or modern-day genetic testing.

Dissenting justices said the majority was misreading the confrontation right and wreaking havoc on state courts.

"Until today, scientific analysis could be introduced into evidence without testimony from the 'analyst' who produced it," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the four dissenters. "This rule has been established for at least 90 years. It extends across at least 35 states and six federal courts of appeals. Yet the court undoes it based on two recent opinions that say nothing about forensic analysts."

The two opinions Kennedy mentioned, Crawford v. Washington in 2004 and Davis v. Washington in 2006, also were majority decisions by Scalia making it more difficult for witnesses' statements to be introduced at trial without their live testimony.

In this series of cases, Scalia has pulled together an unlikely alliance that cuts across ideological lines. Scalia was joined in Thursday's decision by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito. They predicted the majority's decision would put an "onerous burden" on the states.