±Partners and Sponsors

±Your Account


Nickname
Password


Forgotten password/username?


Membership:
New Today: 4
New Yesterday: 7
Overall: 26221
Visitors: 128

±Forensics Europe Expo


±Follow Forensic Focus

Join our LinkedIn group

Subscribe to news

Subscribe to forums

Subscribe to blog

Subscribe to tweets

Confrontation Clause does not need technician

Discussion of legislation relating to computer forensics.
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQSearchView unanswered posts
 

How will this impact your business

1
33%

1
33%

1
33%

0
0%

 
Total Votes: 3

  

Confrontation Clause does not need technician

Post Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:19 pm

The US Supreme Court in 5-4 vote, opined for WILLIAMS v. ILLINOIS that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied by the final forensic specialist evaluation.

This impacts us directly, as we may not be called into court if we are not the final experts are on the case.
At petitioner’s bench trial for rape, Sandra Lambatos, a forensic spe-cialist at the Illinois State Police lab, testified that she matched a
DNA profile produced by an outside laboratory, Cellmark, to a profile
the state lab produced using a sample of petitioner’s blood. She testi-fied that Cellmark was an accredited laboratory and that business
records showed that vaginal swabs taken from the victim, L. J., were
sent to Cellmark and returned. She offered no other statement for
the purpose of identifying the sampleused for Cellmark’s profile or
establishing how Cellmark handled or tested the sample. Nor did
she vouch for the accuracy of Cellmark’s profile. The defense moved
to exclude, on Confrontation Clause grounds, Lambatos’ testimony
insofar as it implicated events atCellmark, but the prosecution said
that petitioner’s confrontation rights were satisfied because he had
the opportunity to cross-examine the expert who had testified as to
the match. The prosecutor argued that Illinois Rule of Evidence 703
permitted an expert to disclose facts on which the expert’s opinion is
based even if the expert is not competent to testify to those underly-ing facts, and that any deficiency went to the weight of the evidence,
not its admissibility. The trial court admitted the evidence and found
petitioner guilty. Both the Illinois Court of Appeals and the State
Supreme Court affirmed, concludingthat Lambatos’ testimony did
not violate petitioner’s confrontation rights because Cellmark’s report
was not offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted.
Held:The judgment is affirmed
 

jhup
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Confrontation Clause does not need technician

Post Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:09 pm

So in a two man team where one person does the acquisition/imaging and the other person does the examination, does this mean only the examiner would be required to testify?  

flamerescue150
Member
 
 
  

Re: Confrontation Clause does not need technician

Post Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:45 am

Why not do the acquisition and the exam and testify?

From my experience and that of people I talk with, the more people who have their hand in the case, the more points to attack various points of a case, and the more chance for success for someone else to win.

Even if both people have CV's 10 pages long of classes in just acquisitions, and they are the best acquisition people on the planet, questions can and will still be raised and doubt can be considered on methods for this.

This is in a 2 man team, or a big Alphabet organization where 10 people touch a computer and the person who has nothing to do with the computer testifies based on the each person down the chain's findings.

Professional testifiers we called them, fly all over the country and only testify.

- flamerescue150
So in a two man team where one person does the acquisition/imaging and the other person does the examination, does this mean only the examiner would be required to testify?

_________________
Why order a taco when you can ask it politely?

Alan B. "A man can live a good life, be honorable, give to charity, but in the end, the number of people who come to his funeral is generally dependent on the weather. " 

armresl
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Confrontation Clause does not need technician

Post Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:05 am

I'm specifically thinking of an organization that has a completely separate lab that does the acquisition. The acquired image then goes to an examiner. The examiner and the imaging technician have both been required to testify in the past. I was just wondering if this development alleviates the need for the tech to testify.  

flamerescue150
Member
 
 
  

Re: Confrontation Clause does not need technician

Post Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:14 am

Well, if I recall this correctly it used to be that the lab big cheese could testify and not everyone had to. Then things changed and everyone could be called. Now this seems to reverse it.

- flamerescue150
I'm specifically thinking of an organization that has a completely separate lab that does the acquisition. The acquired image then goes to an examiner. The examiner and the imaging technician have both been required to testify in the past. I was just wondering if this development alleviates the need for the tech to testify.
 

jhup
Senior Member
 
 
Reply to topicReply to topic

Share this forum topic to encourage more replies



Page 1 of 1