Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Certificates of forensic analysis prepared for criminal prosecution are testimonial statements. Therefore, the analysts who prepare them are witnesses subject to the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, and their reports may not be admitted into evidence unless the analysts are unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Facts:
- In 2001, Boston police received a tip about suspicious activity involving a Kmart employee, Thomas Wright.
- Police conducted surveillance and witnessed Wright get into a car with two other men, one of whom was Luis Melendez-Diaz, and return to the store a short time later.
- An officer detained Wright upon his return and found four plastic bags containing a substance resembling cocaine.
- Officers then arrested Melendez-Diaz and the other man who were in the car.
- During the drive to the police station, officers observed the men making furtive movements in the back of the cruiser.
- After dropping the men off, a search of the police cruiser revealed a plastic bag containing 19 smaller plastic bags of the same substance hidden in a partition.
- The seized bags were submitted to a state laboratory for chemical analysis as required by law.
Procedural Posture:
- Luis Melendez-Diaz was charged with distributing and trafficking cocaine in a Massachusetts state trial court.
- At trial, the prosecution introduced three 'certificates of analysis' from a state lab identifying the seized substance as cocaine.
- The defense objected to the admission of the certificates, arguing it violated the Confrontation Clause because the analysts were not present to testify.
- The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the certificates into evidence.
- A jury found Melendez-Diaz guilty on both charges.
- Melendez-Diaz, as appellant, appealed to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, which affirmed the conviction.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, denied his application for further appellate review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the Confrontation Clause issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of sworn certificates of forensic analysis, created for the purpose of a criminal prosecution, violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against him if the analysts are not made available to testify at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. The admission of sworn certificates of forensic analysis without the live testimony of the analyst violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. These certificates are affidavits, which fall squarely within the 'core class of testimonial statements' covered by the Confrontation Clause as defined in Crawford v. Washington. They are formal, sworn declarations made for the sole purpose of establishing a fact—that the seized substance was cocaine—for use at trial. They are functionally identical to live, in-court testimony. The argument that analysts are not conventional 'accusatory' witnesses is incorrect, as their testimony proves a fact necessary for conviction. Furthermore, the supposed reliability of scientific evidence does not create an exception to the Confrontation Clause, which guarantees a procedural right to challenge evidence through cross-examination, not merely a substantive right to reliable evidence.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
No. The admission of forensic analysis certificates without the analyst's testimony does not violate the Confrontation Clause because forensic analysts are not the type of 'witnesses' the Framers intended the clause to cover. Unlike conventional witnesses who observe a crime or a defendant's actions, analysts are neutral observers of a scientific process, far removed from the defendant and the crime itself. Their reports are near-contemporaneous recordings of their observations, not recollections of past events subject to memory distortion. The majority's formalistic rule unjustifiably expands Crawford, disregards a century of established practice, and threatens to impose enormous systemic costs and disrupt the criminal justice system for a negligible benefit, as cross-examination of analysts is unlikely to be productive.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Yes. The admission of the certificates violates the Confrontation Clause because they are formalized testimonial materials. The Confrontation Clause is implicated by extrajudicial statements only when they are contained in formal materials like affidavits, depositions, or confessions. Because the 'certificates of analysis' in this case are plainly affidavits—sworn statements of fact—they fall within the core of what the Confrontation Clause protects against, requiring the affiant to be subject to cross-examination.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the scope of the Confrontation Clause as reinterpreted in Crawford v. Washington, applying it directly to forensic science evidence. By classifying standard lab reports as testimonial, the Court invalidated the common prosecutorial practice in many states of admitting such evidence through affidavit alone. The ruling requires prosecutors to either produce the forensic analyst for cross-examination or obtain a waiver from the defendant, thereby increasing the procedural burdens and costs in cases relying on scientific evidence, particularly drug prosecutions. It reinforces the principle that the right to confrontation is a procedural guarantee that cannot be circumvented by arguing that the underlying evidence is inherently reliable.
