DA Appeals Ruling in Massachusetts DUI Blood Testing Case
The Middlesex District Attorney’s Office is appealing a ruling of a Marlborough District Court Judge in the Massachusetts DUI case of Commonwealth v. Parmenter, wherein a Judge suppressed blood alcohol results obtained as a result of blood drawn for medical purposes from a DUI defendant.
The prosecution attempted to introduce a laboratory report regarding Parmenter’s blood alcohol content without producing, for cross-examination, the individuals who drew and tested the blood. The defense claims that this violated the rule announced in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, (PDF) wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that a so-called “drug cert.” was inadmissible without the Mass. State Police chemist who did the testing. The Court held that failure to produce the chemist as a witness violated the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
It was determined in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts that the drug certification was not a business record, as it was produced specifically for litigation. Business records are considered non-hearsay and are generally admissible. Here, the prosecution is likely to argue that the laboratory report falls within the business record exception to the hearsay rule because, unlike the “drug cert.” in Melendez-Diaz, the laboratory report was not produced for litigation.
More information will be posted as this important Massachusetts DUI case progresses.
Boy, do prosecutor's read decisions any more or I guess ever? Two different things. Confrontation is a constitutional right. Hearsay is an evidentiary ruling and its exception is a rule based one. Confrontation trumps.
It is addressed in M-D directly.
Additionally, as indicated by the United States Supreme Court, it is irrelevant that the evidence itself may be admissible under a business record exception to the hearsay rule. Melendez-Diaz at 2536. Regarding this, the Melendez-Diaz Court expressly stated that “[w]hether or not they qualify as business or official records, the analysts’ statements here – prepared specifically for use at petitioner’s trial – were testimony against petitioner, and the analysts were subject to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 2540.
One simple question. Does your state crime lab do private testing?
_________________
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Harrisburg DUI Lawyer