Found this nugget about the "Confrontation Clause"

[maxxim]

Full text pulled from this site....

http://prorev.com/2009/07/court-discovers-sixth-amendment.html

July 30, 2009
COURT DISCOVERS SIXTH AMENDMENT

Washington City Paper - With crack and marijuana stashed in his pocket, Kenneth Millard and some friends scattered when an unmarked police car rolled into the parking lot outside his apartment building in Southeast. The cops were looking for someone else, but Millard fell into the trap.

After bolting through a cut in the woods and stumbling down a steep hill, Millard bounced off the side of another police car blocking his escape route. He dodged and weaved down Jasper Road SE until two officers tackled and cuffed him on the pavement. Police said a Colt .22 handgun, loaded with 11 rounds, flew out of Millard's waistband during the chase and landed near a manhole.

When officers caught Millard that February night in 2005, they found 10 plastic bags filled with crack cocaine and marijuana in the right front pocket of his coveralls, according to court records. Millard's lengthy rap sheet was growing longer, and he was heading back to jail.

At his trial in 2006, the jury convicted Millard on five drug and firearm charges, and the judge sentenced him to four-and-a-half years in prison.

But he just caught a break.

The D.C. Court of Appeals has reversed all of Millard's convictions, wiping them off his record with a unanimous decision in March.

After overturning one of its own earlier precedents, the highest court in the District has reversed convictions in at least 14 cases involving drug dealers and others caught with drugs. The reversals hinge on an important constitutional issue stemming from eight words tucked in the Sixth Amendment known as the Confrontation Clause. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

In Millard's case, the "missing" witness was a chemist from the Drug Enforcement Administration whose drug analysis report stated that the baggies in Millard's pocket contained cocaine and marijuana. Because the analyst didn't appear in court, Millard's drug convictions were reversed, but the firearm convictions were tossed out, too, because of weak evidence and their connection to the drug case.

The legal fight playing out in D.C. will be spreading across the nation after a Supreme Court decision in June in a case with striking similarities to Millard's. The 5-4 ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts could result in thousands of reversed convictions and dismissed drug, drunken-driving, and other charges, creating the potential for chaos in the justice system.

Looks like we may have openings for cannabis analysts.

 

[PharmaCan]

Darn, there's that pesky Constitution again.

If more people were to fight drug charges, as opposed to going for a plea deal, and require that all the players be in court for lengthy jury trials, sooner or later it would screw with government budgets so much that change would have to come. Prohibition needs to become prohibitively expensive for the gov't to continue it.

PC

 

[Blue Dot]

Darn, there's that pesky Constitution again.

If more people were to fight drug charges, as opposed to going for a plea deal, and require that all the players be in court for lengthy jury trials, sooner or later it would screw with government budgets so much that change would have to come. Prohibition needs to become prohibitively expensive for the gov't to continue it.

PC

good post!

 

[sunwukong]

Darn, there's that pesky Constitution again.

If more people were to fight drug charges, as opposed to going for a plea deal, and require that all the players be in court for lengthy jury trials, sooner or later it would screw with government budgets so much that change would have to come. Prohibition needs to become prohibitively expensive for the gov't to continue it.

PC

So true. If everyone demanded trial for charges brought against them, as is your right as an American, our justice system could only afford to prosecute those who commit true crimes. Imagine what would happen if juries were properly instructed as to their right of nullification. We would have a justice system that truely represented the beliefs and temperament of the majority. Good post.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

good post. this is useful info to all involved ina cannabis related case.

 

[imnotcrazy]

Sorry off topic but: MOST judges will file contempt of court charges if a defendant OR their lawyer make the slightest mention of Nullification. I honestly feel it is because it shows them that they:

#1) Actually DO have to Protect and SERVE (them and LEO)

AND

#2) That their job is to actually MODERATE the law process, not be an integral part of it...... That's the Jury's job

 

[BurmeseDragon]

They never gave me the slightest constitutional privileged. They always put an ass hat that was not the whole arresting force, in the witness booth.

It's a crock of shit that I have seen, and it's not smelling any softer.

 

[Pythagllio]

Sorry off topic but: MOST judges will file contempt of court charges if a defendant OR their lawyer make the slightest mention of Nullification.

So you should be able to show a boatload of cases where this has happened, right? I'm aware of exactly one, in CO, and IIRC it was overturned on appeal.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

So true. If everyone demanded trial for charges brought against them, as is your right as an American, our justice system could only afford to prosecute those who commit true crimes. Imagine what would happen if juries were properly instructed as to their right of nullification. We would have a justice system that truely represented the beliefs and temperament of the majority. Good post.

^good post. this points out one of the biggest places where the justice system is broken.

So theoretically, even if a judge does throw your in jail because of the mention of jury nullification, then you can appeal and get your case thrown out? Am I understanding this right?

 

[sunwukong]

Judges can, will and have had jurors and defendants placed under arrest for contempt of court for mentioning jury nullification. A judge almost placed my father under arrest for reminding his fellow jurors that it was not only a jurists obligation to weigh evidence and come up with a verdict, but to protect the defendant (your peer, you on a bad luck day) from unnecessary goverment abuses. Tell any jerk off bureaucrat that they are no longer running the show, and they will do anything to silence you, even break the law. I don't know if anyone has been successfully prosecuted for nullification, but I do know that America has forced to overturn laws via nullification (fugitive slave act is one example).

 

[ChronJohn]

Interesting stuff about jury nullification. About the Supreme Court case mentioned above, I heard that in cases where you're on probation/parole and get a piss test and it's sent to a lab, if it comes back positive and you have to go to court, you can subpoena the lab tech who tested your piss and concluded that it came back positive for whatever and if he doesn't show in court then you are off the hook. Has anyone else heard about this and how many of you think it would hold up in court?

 

[sailsinthesun]

Interesting stuff about jury nullification. About the Supreme Court case mentioned above, I heard that in cases where you're on probation/parole and get a piss test and it's sent to a lab, if it comes back positive and you have to go to court, you can subpoena the lab tech who tested your piss and concluded that it came back positive for whatever and if he doesn't show in court then you are off the hook. Has anyone else heard about this and how many of you think it would hold up in court?

That sounds like what this "confrontation clause" is dealing with. By my understanding, you are correct but with how our justice system works I wouldn't rely on it.

 

[DeezyH]

Here's the SCOTUS wiki article on the Melendez Diaz vs Mass case that was recently decided. They basically reaffirmed our sixth amendment right by showing the lab results are indeed testimony.

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Melendez-Diaz_v._Massachusetts#Opinion_Analysis

There's also another case, Briscoe V. Virginia, that challenges the right of confrontation to forensic evidence. The case is not schedule for hearing but is worth watching.

 

[coolx]

Did Millard ASK for the analyst to appear? If you have the right to confront but don't ask ...

 

[Olifant]

Interesting stuff about jury nullification. About the Supreme Court case mentioned above, I heard that in cases where you're on probation/parole and get a piss test and it's sent to a lab, if it comes back positive and you have to go to court, you can subpoena the lab tech who tested your piss and concluded that it came back positive for whatever and if he doesn't show in court then you are off the hook. Has anyone else heard about this and how many of you think it would hold up in court?

I know people who were able to get their urine clean asap and their lawyer arranged for a new sample to be taken and processed by an independent lab which worked in that particular case. I'm no lawyer but from what i understand, the defense does have a right to independent forensic analysis of all evidence. In this case it was a trick his lawyer used to get a better stance in probation dirty urine cases. Of course most of these technicalities are susceptible to the old lawyer proverb, a good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge (and prosecutor, and plays golf with both)

 

[ChronJohn]

thanks for all the responses all. i can't wait to see how the court's ruling in both millard's case and melendez-diaz's case wreaks "chaos in the justice system". anything that tosses a wrench in those rusty old gears is a good thing to me..

 

[sunwukong]

thanks for all the responses all. i can't wait to see how the court's ruling in both millard's case and melendez-diaz's case wreaks "chaos in the justice system". anything that tosses a wrench in those rusty old gears is a good thing to me..

The whole system is corrupt. Prisons for profit ensured that. They're talking about a DOJ overhaul soon, but I really doubt much will get done. The gov. is doing its job. F*cking s#it up left and right.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^got that right. the government has been fucking up really bad since like nixon times. Clinton wasnt to bad cause we had a surplus and every thing was pretty dandy for us. I think he should have done a lot more to stop the genocide going on in the bosnia conflict. The whole bj thing was really funny though.

 

[itsjustaride]

i dont get it i mean its just a plant right plants grow

 

[coolx]

^^ I don't blame the judge at all. First, it's judgmental, unless you had some direct evidence of his stupidity, but your comment is based on his looks; second, even if you thought he were, what's the point of insulting him? just ask for your own lawyer; third, sure you can do what you want, go kill someone even, but there are consequences; and fourth, what has that to do with a thread on confronting witnesses against you? He's probably brighter than you and wouldn't recommend needlessly antagonizing a judge who's going to oversee at least a part of your case. You remind me of those guys wearing those big guns at Obama's town halls. Wonder what they're making up for.