Abstract
In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, with Justice Scalia writing the opinion, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether affidavits reporting the results of forensic analysis connecting the defendant to an illegal substance are testimonial and therefore subject to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held in Pointer v. Texas that the Confrontation Clause applies to all criminal prosecutions. The statute derives its authority from the Fourteenth and the Sixth Amendments. This Clause ensures defendants the right to confront adverse witnesses. The Court's holding in Crawford v. Washington established the rule that testimonial statements are subject to the Confrontation Clause. Therefore, the defendant has the right to confront any witness "who 'bear[s] testimony' against him.", If the witness is unavailable for trial and the defendant has not had an opportunity to cross-examine that witness, the testimony is deemed inadmissible.
Recommended Citation
Greer, Danielle
(2014)
"Crawford Means What it Says: The Birth of the Melendez-Diaz Objection,"
Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy: Vol. 6
:
Iss.
2
, Article 7.
Available at:
https://trace.tennessee.edu/tjlp/vol6/iss2/7