Once arrested, the three men were put in a police cruiser and transported to the station. The officers had witnessed what appeared to be plastic bags containing drugs passed between the men.
In 2001, after receiving information on a drug transaction, Boston police officers arrested three men, among them Luis Melendez-Diaz. The case hinges on the issue of whether those affidavits are testimonial, rendering the affiants witnesses subject to the defendant’s right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. Massachusetts, the Massachusetts courts admitted into evidence affidavits reporting the results of forensic analysis, which showed that material seized by the police and connected to the defendant was cocaine. 5 In the procedural history of Melendez-Diaz v. The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause provides that “n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right.to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” 4 This bedrock procedural guarantee applies to both federal and state prosecutions. Washington, where it interpreted and explored the application of the constitutional provision found in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution known as the Confrontation Clause. Massachusetts, the court expounded on its previous ruling in the landmark case Crawford v. This article explores this decision and its implications for prosecutors relying on such examinations. 2 The Melendez-Diaz decision addressed the practice of using evidence affidavits in lieu of in-person testimony by forensic examiners, holding that the practice violates the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. 1 That second bite at the apple, however, did not bear fruit, with this year’s Court issuing a one-sentence opinion and sending it back down to the Virginia Supreme Court, merely instructing its members to make their ruling consistent with last year’s Melendez-Diaz v.
Supreme Court agreed to hear a case with an almost identical issue as a controversial decision from its last term.
In an interesting turn of its docket this year, the U.S.