Supreme Court Punts on Crime Lab Case
During January oral arguments in Briscoe v. Virginia, Justice Antonin Scalia made clear he wasn’t happy with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant cert in the confrontation clause case.
At issue was the constitutionality of Virginia’s rules for the use of laboratory reports at trial in light of Scalia’s recent ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. Scalia’s June decision had held that crime lab evidence can’t be used at trial unless the lab analysts are subject to cross-examination. Virginia allows prosecutors to present paper reports to support their case, but requires the analysts to testify for cross-examination if the defense requests it.
Today, Scalia apparently prevailed. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded Briscoe v. Virginia to the Virginia Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion (PDF), directing it to reconsider in light of Melendez-Diaz.
The Virginia Supreme Court had sided with prosecutors and had upheld a drug conviction that was supported by crime lab certificates rather than live testimony.
During oral arguments in January, Scalia had criticized the cert grant.
“Why is this case here except as an opportunity to upset Melendez-Diaz?” Scalia had asked in January. When a lawyer tried to answer, Scalia explained the question was more of a comment. “I’m criticizing us for taking the case,” he said.
