The United States Supreme Court Muddles The Law in Williams v. Illinois

Sandy Williams was arrested on a sexual charged in Chicago and convicted of that offense.  Like New Jersey, Illinois requires that everyone convicted of a crime (felony), be required to give a DNA sample to the state police laboratory.  After Mr. Williams’ DNA sample was run in the national DNA data base it was determined that his DNA matched a sample from another crime scene.

At trial a person for the prosecution testified that Mr. Williams DNA matched the sample found at the crime scene.  This testimony was allowed in spite of the fact that the crime scene sample was analyzed by Cellmark Diagnostics Laboratory in Maryland. 

Interesting in this case, know one from Cellmark testified about the testing of this specimen, and Mr. Williams was convicted. 

This case unfortunately appears to have eroded the seminal case Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and its progeny, Bullcoming v. New Mexico.

In New Jersey, however, because our state affords greater constitutional protections than at the federal level, it would be highly unlikely that such a conviction would occur without the testimony of the forensic chemist from the lab who analyzed the DNA from the crime scene.  In her dissent Justice Kagan pointed out that in another case the technician from Cellmark admitted in cross-examination that she had tested the wrong bloodied search.

The need to confront all witnesses for the prosecution is essential under the Sixth Amendment to the United States and State’s constitution and that right cannot be eviscerated by any court.

In a recent case Attorney Sanzone was able in cross-examination at trial to get the chief forensic chemist from the Ocean County Sheriff’s Office Crime Laboratory to admit that her test results finding Marijuana were flawed and she admitted that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the samples taken were in fact Marijuana.  Specifically, she stated that because she was not a botanist and the other test she performed gives false positives, there was reasonable doubt as to whether her conclusions as to whether the substance tested was in fact Marijuana as she stated in her laboratory report.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207

Office Phone Number (908) 354-7706

Cell Phone Number   (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Union County Lawyers, Union County NJ Criminal Lawyers, Best Union County Lawyers, Best Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, Union County Criminal Attorneys, New Jersey Union County Attorneys, Union County Defense Attorneys, Beating the Drug Case, NJ Drug Attorneys, NJ CDS trial lawyers,

The State’s Proffer Without the Supporting Documents to Support Forensic Examination Insufficient to Trigger Defense Counsel’s Period to Object

May 17, 2011, the Appellate Division in State v. Heisler held that the period in which defense counsel must object to a laboratory certificate is tolled until such time as defense counsel receives all supporting documents in connection with the lab certificate.

The Comprehensive Drug Reform Act, as found in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 requires that the State provide a lab certificate along with all supporting documents before said certificate can be admitted into evidence without objection. If defense counsel objects within 10 dates of receipt of the certificate and the reasons for said objection, the State must produce the testimony of the lab technician who performed the specific forensic tests. However, the 10 day period does not begin to run until the defense receives not only the lab certificate but the supporting test documents, which includes but not limited to, all the reports relating to the analysis.

The Court correctly ruled that it is impossible for defense counsel to competently decide whether to object to the certificate until such time as the underlying accompanying data is received by defense counsel.

If the data is not disclosed, defense counsel’s obligation to object is never triggered, and hence, the report does not come into evidence. This case seems to hold that even if no objection is made by defense counsel the lab report does not come into evidence until the State satisfies all the requirements of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. CriminalDefenseNJ.com 277 N. Broad Street, Elizabeth, NJ, (908) 354-7006

Dated: May 23, 2011