The average person knows a little about having a “right to remain silent”. Even if you’ve never personally been arrested, you’ve heard that line before on television. But if remaining silent in the face of criminal charges is a right, how could it be used as evidence of our guilt in court? The Supreme Court has recently decided to hear a case where this question is the crux of the matter. [Read more…]
Supreme Court to Take On Warrantless DUI Blood Draws
UPDATE: The ruling is out, and it is a good decision!
Should the police be allowed to forcibly take your blood without a warrant? A growing number of agencies across the country believe so. But the Supreme Court isn’t so sure. They have announced that they will take up a case concerning warrantless and involuntary blood draws and make the final determination. [Read more…]
Do You Have a Right to an Insanity Plea?
The Constitution of the United States guarantees many different rights to us when we stand accused of a crime. One of these is the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Attorneys representing an Idaho man say that this right is violated when a defendant is not allowed to use an insanity plea and they are hoping the Supreme Court will take up their cause next year. [Read more…]
Supreme Court Rules on Miranda Rights for Inmates
Last week the Supreme Court took on the issue of when it’s appropriate to read someone their rights if they are already incarcerated. They determined that little more than an announcement that “you are free to end this questioning” is needed to circumvent the required Miranda warning. [Read more…]
Supreme Court Rules on Warrantless GPS Tracking
Today the Supreme Court handed down a much awaited ruling regarding the use of GPS tracking devices attached to automobiles. The ruling may disappoint some, who don’t hold civil liberties in high regards, but is cause for celebration for others. The High Court voted unanimously that cops do need a warrant when tracking a vehicle via GPS. [Read more…]
Supreme Court to Decide If Cops Can GPS Your Car Without Warrant
Can the police attach a GPS tracking device to your car without your knowledge and without a warrant? A U.S. Court of Appeals said no and overturned a conviction on that ruling. But many others, including federal prosecutors and the Obama Administration, say yes. The Supreme Court will have the final say in their upcoming term. [Read more…]
Mass Legislator Seeks to Close Drug Prosecution Loopholes in Melendez-Diaz
A Massachusetts state legislator has introduced a bill to make it more difficult for accused drug offenders to game the court system as a result of current evidence requirements. [Read more…]
New Court Evidence Ruling Coming Soon
Only a year after the Supreme Court’s controversial Melendez-Diaz decision, court watchers are awaiting possible revisions to that decision. [Read more…]
Detailed Legal Overview of Melendez-Diaz in Boston Bar Journal
This fall’s Boston Bar Journal has an excellent overview of the Melendez-Diaz decision it’s legal origins, and practical implications going forward. The author discusses prior cases such as Crawford v. Washington, and more recent cases (Tabaka v. District of Colombia and Grant v. Commonwealth of Virginia) that expand the scope of the Melendez-Diaz decision.
Also mentioned are practical legislate responses being adopted. Other states such as Massachusetts are looking to adopt the evidence rules of notice and demand that started in Virginia. A notice and demand procedure provides a framework for prosecutors to notify defendants that documentary forensic evidence will be used, and the defense attorneys can formally request the present of a forensic expert witness to review the findings and be challenged in court. This system gives the prosecution time to actually arrange for the witness to appear in court as required.
Overall, a very thorough and recommended read.
Ability To Confront Accuser Conflicts With Officer Safely
A couple of interesting cases concerning the US Constitution’s 6th Amendment confrontation clause are discussed in this fascinating article in the Nashua Telegraph.
The issues revolve around police officer’s who are currently engaged in potentially dangerous undercover assignments testifying in court as witnesses for the prosecution. In several cases noted, judges allowed the officers’ identities to be hidden by masks.
Defense attorneys in the cases argued that this means of testimony violated the defendant’s right to confront one’s accuser in open court, as described in the “Confrontation Clause” of the 6th amendment to the US Constitution, the right to “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”.
In this case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the defendant’s rights were not violated, and only harmless error was committed, since the evidence was otherwise overwhelming against the defendant. But they did offer some guidelines for future cases for judges to balance these decisions and review them carefully on a case by case basis. It remains to be seen whether higher courts and possibly the US Supreme Court will take up this matter directly to make a more explicit ruling.
