Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 10, 2008
Decided June 25, 2009
Full case nameLuis E. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
Docket no.07-591
Citations557 U.S. 305 (more)
129 S.Ct. 2527; 174 L. Ed. 2d 314; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4734
Case history
Priorguilty; appeal rejected, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 1114, 870 N.E.2d 676 (2007)(unpublished); denying review, 449 Mass. 1113, 874 N.E.2d 407 (2007).
Holding
Sworn affidavits are testimonial in nature, violate the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington (2004), and do not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The requirements of the Confrontation Clause may not be relaxed because they make the prosecution's task burdensome. "Notice and demand" statutes are constitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Stevens, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentKennedy, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Alito
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VI; Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test.[2] While the court ruled that the then-common practice[3] of submitting these reports without testimony was unconstitutional, it also held that so called "notice-and-demand" statutes are constitutional. A state would not violate the Constitution through a "notice-and-demand" statute by both putting the defendant on notice that the prosecution would submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the scientist and also giving the defendant sufficient time to raise an objection.[4]

  1. ^ Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009). Public domain This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ^ following the reasoning of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
  3. ^ See generally, Amicus Brief for the Thirty-Five States and DC
  4. ^ Citing per e.g. Ga. Code Ann. §35–3–154.1(2006)[1]; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 38.41, §4 (Vernon2005)[2]; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2925.51(C) (West 2006)[3].