Tuesday, May 11, 2010

State's BIO in Pendergrass

The state has filed its Brief in Opposition in Pendergrass v. Indiana. You can read it by clicking here.

Sooner or later, the Court is going to have to address the basic issue raised by this case -- whether a prosecutor may prove an event or condition (here, the conduct and results of a lab test) by presenting the testimony of a person who did not observe that event or condition.

5 comments:

Pro-Se Student said...

Regarding Supervisor In Lab Comment- Still, Waiting 2See This Civilly, Where Supervisor Comes 'Stead of the Mental Health Evaluator(s). (This He Deemed 'Scientific'). This Falls In The Realm of Due Process, Not the 6th Amendment. And, Clear and Convincing Evidence, Not Hired A Gun.

Anonymous said...

For a good reason to have the technician testify, see:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/lab_tech_wQIOPAcKYnI2rP1lQMEDqL

Richard D. Friedman said...

That appears -- if the allegations are true -- to be a bad case of falsified work by a lab tech. Another useful reminder that they are not infallible. It was quality control rather than cross-examination that turned this problem up.

Bill Sherman said...

I'd imagine there should be no shortage of opportunities to bring that question to the court; these issues arise all the time. For example, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/325706_dui31.html and http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15167040?nclick_check=1

Hope you're well, Rich.

Anonymous said...

Cert denied this morning.