Melendez-Dias Results in Massachusetts DUI Defense Win
In the recent Massachusetts DUI case of Commonwealth v. Parmenter, (November 24, 2009), Marlborough District Court Judge Noonan excluded evidence regarding the DUI defendant’s alcohol levels which were determined from blood drawn while the defendant was airlifted from the scene of an OUI accident to the hospital. The blood alcohol evidence was excluded based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Melendez-Dias v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2531 (2009).
Judge Noonan ruled that the blood alcohol evidence will be inadmissible at Parmenter’s DUI trial unless the Commonwealth produces the medical personnel who drew the blood. The laboratory personnel who tested the blood should also be required to testify.
In Melendez-Dias v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court held that the introduction of laboratory certifications without making available the scientist who conducted the laboratory tests violates the confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution which gives criminal defendants the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. The Melendez-Dias decision may prove to be a powerful tool in Massachusetts DUI cases.
Isn't it a shame that the case had to go all the way up to the Untied States Supreme Court to give meaning to the basic concept that was literally written over 200 years ago? I mean it is literally right there in the text of the Sixth Amendment: "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The right of Confrontation. It was created all the way back in 1789 as a part of the Bill of Rights, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. Amazing that it was ever debated.
_________________
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Harrisburg DUI Lawyer