Forsensic Lab Report Hearsay Without Testimony of Chemists

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 23, 2011, reaffirmed the right to confront witnesses proffered by prosecution witnesses who testify as to the contents of lab reports in criminal cases.

The narrow question presented to the court was whether the confrontation clause permits the prosecution to admit a forensic laboratory report containing testimonial information from a witness who did not prepare, or sign the certification concerning the lab reports contents?

Again following the Supreme Court Crawford and Melendez-Diaz decisions the court held that such “surrogate testimony” does not meet the constitutional requirements of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence, the report is not admissible into evidence without the testimony of the actual chemists who prepared the report.

This decision does not change the well established decisional law in New Jersey which always required the testimony of the forensic chemists who preformed the tests.  In every criminal case it is essential that defense counsel object to any attempt by the prosecution to introduce hearsay evidence through lab reports without the testimony of the forensic chemists.

Law Office Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey, Union County

NJ Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Criminal Trial Attorney, Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ Federal Criminal Trial Attorneys, Criminal Lawyers NJ

Dated: June 24, 2011

The Harvard Justice Project By Harvard University Professor of Political Philosophy, Michael J. Sandel.

To date approximately 15,000 students have taken the legendary “Justice” class taught by Harvard University philosophy professor, Michael J. Sandel.  

What make Professor Sandel’s class so interesting and counter-cultural is that Professor Sandel is attempting to get people to start thinking again.  He is challenging people to think about some of the great issues facing society in the post-modern era.  Topics that the main stream media could care less.  Pressing and philosophical questions as to whether torturing of alleged terrorists can ever be justified, the redistribution of wealth, the alleged and fruitless war on drugs, is it right to pay a celebrity, (some one such as David Letterman), 700 times more than a school teacher, to name a few of his posed questions to his students.

What is even more remarkable that most of his live Harvard lectures can be viewed for free by visiting the Harvard website at www.harvardjustice.org.  In these video lectures you can listen at the real debates between Professor Sandel and his Harvard students. 

For people who are tried of nonsense T.V. shows such as American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and other worthless, and degrading reality shows, these lectures are mind inspiring and challenge us to think about what is the right thing to do in the post-modern era, for the betterment of not only the people of the United States but for the entire human race.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: June 21, 2011

State Attorney General Paula T. Dow Releases Directive No. 2011-2 to All Law Enforcement Agencies in the State Regarding Retention of Police Notes.

On May 23, 2011 the State Attorney General’s Office sent a directive to all state, county and local police departments advising them that their investigators can no longer destroy crime investigative notes, and that all notes must be preserved, effective May 27, 2011.  The directive states that all notes, whether in written or oral form, including every type of media, which memorializes the police officers observations regarding his crime investigation or his interview with any witnesses must be preserved, and handed over to defense counsel at the appropriate time.

However, pursuant to the directive the investigator need not turn over any notes regarding his investigative techniques or deliberative process which according to the directive is still privileged. 

In defining a “witness interview”, the directive held that it only applies to investigations regarding crimes of the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th degree crimes, whether committed by a juvenile or adult offender.  However, the directive makes no mention of notes being preserved for disorderly person’s offenses or motor vehicle charges. To read the directive in full go to: http://www.state.nj.us/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/dir-2011-2-RetentionTransmittal.pdf

This directive was made by the Attorney General’s Office pursuant to the recent New Jersey Supreme Court case, State v. W.B. decided on April 27, 2011.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Union County, Elizabeth, N.J.

Dated: June 2, 2011

N.J. Criminal Lawyer