The Impact of Melendez-Diaz on North Carolina

linkedin
Share on Google+
Share on Reddit
Share on Tumblr
Download PDF

I was on vacation last week, and the buzz around Melendez-Diaz — see this prior post for the basics — was partly drowned out by the sound of the waves crashing on the beach. But only partly, because Melendez-Diaz is a big case, with significant implications for North Carolina, and questions about it were still burning up my email. Fortunately, I have a new stock answer to all those questions: read this paper. It’s an extensive analysis of the impact of Melendez-Diaz on North Carolina, by my colleague Jessie Smith. It’s thorough, it’s terrific . . . and it acknowledges that there are significant areas of uncertainty, including how Melendez-Diaz affects the practice of Lab Analyst A testifying based on a review of Lab Analyst B’s work.

One further tidbit about Melendez-Diaz: the Supreme Court just granted certiorari in a case called Briscoe v. Virginia, which raises issues that are very similar to those decided in Melendez-Diaz. Some — including the sharp folks at SCOTUSblog in this post — think that the four Melendez-Diaz dissenters are hoping to revisit the case with Judge Sotomayor replacing Justice Souter and perhaps tipping the scales in the other direction. Maybe so, but with no clear indication of how Judge Sotomayor would view the case if confirmed, lawyers in the trenches have to treat Melendez-Diaz as exactly what it is: the law.

One comment on “The Impact of Melendez-Diaz on North Carolina

  1. Heh. If true, that’s a pretty canny move by the dissenters from Melendez-Diaz, considering the fact that Judge Sotomayor is a former prosecutor and is thought to be much more prosecution-friendly than Justice Souter.

    Of course, “thought to be” is the sort of speculation that got me crucified in law school. I suppose we’ll see how it plays out!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.