Confrontation Clause Law
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him. In practice, the Confrontation Clause protects a defendant’s right of cross-examination by limiting the prosecutor’s ability to introduce statements made by people not in the courtroom.
Recent United States Supreme Court Decision – Smith v. Arizona – Addresses the Right to Confront a Crime Lab Analyst
As part of an investigation, a police officer may collect evidence such as suspected drugs, fingerprints, blood, or urine. If collected, the police officer will send that evidence to a crime lab to be tested and analyzed. At trial, the prosecutor can call as a witness the analyst who conducted the testing at the crime lab to testify as to the testing and results of the testing. But that happens if the prosecutor calls to the witness stand an analyst who was not the person who conducted the tests at the crime lab? The recent case of Smith v. Arizona held that this scenario likely violates a defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against them.
Ohio Law on Laboratory Reports as Evidence
In drug cases, the crime lab will often provide a report stating the content, weight, and identity of the suspected substances. Under Ohio law, specifically Ohio Revised Code Section 2925.51, the crime lab’s report can be used as evidence of the content, weight, and identity of the suspected substances. However, the accused has the right to demand the testimony of the analyst who signed the report within seven (7) days from the accused receiving of the report. If the accused fails to demand the testimony of the analysist when given the opportunity to do so, the laboratory report is admissible under the statute.
Posted: August 20, 2024
Talk with an experienced Lawyer today
Fill out the form to get started with your case evaluation.
