Firearms Decision May Impact Massachusetts DUI Cases
A firearm possession case which was decided yesterday may have implications in Massachusetts DUI cases. In Commonwealth v. Ware, firearms possession convictions were reversed on appeal because the admission of a certificate from a Massachusetts State Police Ballistician, without the ballistician’s live testimony, violated the confrontation clause contained in the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as recently outlined in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.
In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the U.S. Supreme Court held that criminal defendants have the constitutional right to confront an cross-examine witnesses who perform scientific and laboratory testing in connection with a criminal case. Reliance on a laboratory certificate without the production of the live witness was held to be improper.
The legal principle clearly established by Melendez-Diaz was recently used to suppress blood alcohol evidence in Commonwealth v. Parmenter, where blood was drawn by medical personnel in connection with the treatment of a DUI suspect. This case is currently under appeal and will be deiced by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. More information will follow as it becomes available.
The Melendez-Diaz decision might also be used in Massachusetts DUI cases with respect to certificates relied upon to prove the accuracy of breathalyzer instruments and simulator solutions used in Massachusetts DUI cases.
