Massachusetts DUI Law : Mass Lawyer & Attorney for Drunk Driving Arrests in Boston, Worcester, Framingham

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.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks