Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|07-591||Mass. Ct. App.||
Nov 10, 2008
|Jun 25, 2009||5-4||Scalia||OT 2008|
Disclosure: Akin Gump served as co-counsel for the petitioner.
Issue: Whether a state forensic analystâ€™s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is â€œtestimonialâ€ evidence subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington (2004).
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia on June 25, 2009.
- The last two days in plain English
- A Boumediene sequel bypassed
- A limit on Confrontation rights?
- Analysis: Is Melendez-Diaz already endangered?
- Analysis: Law need not bow to chemistry
- Outstanding OT08 cases
- Argument analysis: As Kennedy goes...
- Argument Preview: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner Luis E. Melendez-Diaz
- Brief for Respondent the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Luis E. Melendez-Diaz
- Brief for Law Professors in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Richard D. Friedman in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Association of Federal Defenders, and the National College for DUI Defense in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the National Innocence Network in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the United States in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the National District Attorneys Association and District, Prosecuting, and County Attorneys in Support of Respondent