In a recent decision handed down from a California Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed a criminal defendant’s Constitutional right to confront an expert witness who has prepared a report relied upon by another prosecution witness. In People v. Dungo, the DA tried at a jury trial to swap a bad witness with a better one. The defendant had admitted choking his girlfriend to death, but claimed he did so only after he was provoked to the point of losing control, and thus, was guilty of at most voluntary manslaughter. Dr. Bolduc, a pathologist, conducted an autopsy on the victim’s body and prepared a report of his findings. Dr. Bolduc, however, never testified at the defendant’s trial. He was the bad witness. Instead the prosecution called Bolduc’s supervisor, Dr. Lawrence, as the good witness. Dr. Lawrence was called to testify about the duration of the choking-which was discovered during the autopsy and bore on the defendant’s culpability-even though Dr. Lawrence was not present during the autopsy. The prosecution chose to use Dr. Lawrence in place Dr. Bolduc because Dr. Bolduc had a disreputable employment record that would undermine his credibility as a witness. The jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder, not manslaughter. However, under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution every criminal defendant has the right to be confronted by, or cross-examine, witnesses against them. In this case, the Court on appeal held that the defendant was not properly afforded this right because he was not provided a chance to cross-examine the person who actually prepared a report which was the basis of another witness’s testimony. The decision of the Court of Appeals not only comports with longstanding precedent, but also highlights an important policy issue-the state’s employment of credible experts, or in this case lack thereof. If the State of California wishes the finding of its experts to be used against criminal defendants, in proceedings which can potentially deprive a person of his or her liberty, than the state should hire only the most credible experts to examine evidence. This should include not only the hiring and retention of experts who are paid by the government, but also, the employees of private companies with which the government contracts to do such “expert” work. If the state for whatever reason relies on experts who are less than competent or less than credible to examine evidence and make findings that can be used in criminal proceedings, than any issues of these experts’ credibility should be known to whoever is deciding the fate of a criminal defendant. In other words, the prosecution is prevented in these situations from swapping a bad witness with a good witness.
Posts Tagged ‘Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment’
Is that Drug Really Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Marijuana, or Heroin? Don’t trust the crime lab report.
In serious drug prosecutions, criminal defense lawyers cannot blindly trust police crime lab reports supposedly confirming that a substance is really cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, or heroin. For that matter, anything coming out of the crime lab, such as blood toxicology results, DNA results and chain-of custody receipts should not be blindly trusted, either. The United States Supreme Court , in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, recently confirmed that crime lab reports are so important that the analyst that prepared the report and did the testing must be called as a witness and subjected to cross examination by the defense attorney for the results to be used as evidence. The Court held that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of Constitution guarantees this right to defendants seeking to challenge crime lab results. The Court was concerned with the possibility that the report could have been faked or the test may not have been completed properly, and cross examination is the best vehicle for proving problems with the report.
Indeed, here in San Diego, I have recently come into possession of material indicating that a lab analyst who formerly produced reports that were regularly relied upon by San Diego prosecutors, committed perjury while working at another job by faking lab reports and results of confirmatory lab tests. (In crime labs, the presumptive test alone is not valid to conclude the actual presence of the controlled substance; a more reliable, confirmatory test is needed). The information showed that 1000’s of tests were faked. These false lab reports of drug results are clearly relevant to proving that his work product – in fact anything he touched – cannot be trusted. In many drug cases, the alleged controlled substance may be available for retesting or the defense may conduct their own tests. The defense lawyer should also consider a complete review of the chain-of-custody for each and every lab item sought to be used by the prosecutor.
The lesson a bad lab analyst imparts only reinforces what every good defense lawyers knows: don’t assume that any piece of evidence is infallible.
Contact us for help with your case, (619) 232-5122, or info@attorneylombardo.com.
