|
|
Sunday, March 6, 2011
By Michael Nichols
The Supreme Court of the United States is considering a case that will have a big impact on OWI-DUI-OWID cases. The case is Bullcoming v New Mexico. The SCOTUS heard arguments on this case on Wednesday, March 2d. OWI-OUID-criminal law-expert Mike Nichols was asked to comment on the case for Lansing media recently. "The issue is whether a toxicology lab should be allowed to simply send a substitute witness to court for the analyst who actually conducted the sample," sad Nichols. Nichols added "in Mr. Bullcoming's case, the lab analyst who ran the analysis of his blood was on unpaid administrative leave from the lab. Therefore, the analyst's supervisor decided to testify as a surrogate before the jury."
The Supreme Court previously ruled that evidence of a chemical analysis in a crime lab identifying a particular illegal drug may not be admitted in a criminal trial without live testimony about the analysis in Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts. "The whole point in that ruling was to allow the accused citizen the right to confront the witness who prepared the analysis," Nichols said. The confrontation clause is found within the 6th Amendment of the Constitution. "It protects the right of each and every one of us to be protected from secret witnesses or allowing a person to write a letter or some statement and have it admitted into evidence before a fact-finder without that witness having to come testify live, under oath and be subject to cross examination," Nichols added.
OWI-expert Mike Nichols and the lawyers of the Nichols Law Firm have already argued to protect the confrontation rights of citizens charged with crimes. Nichols is the author of the Michigan OWI Handbook by Thomson Reuters West Publishing and is also an adjunct professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School. He was interviewed March 5th on another important Confrontation Clause case: Michigan v Bryant. "In the Bryant case, the Court held that the test is no longer an objective analysis of the impact of the statements made by a person who is not available for trial. The court created a new gray area in constitutional law in which the analysis is going to be what was the intent of the person who made the out of court statements. The full interview can be heard at http://www.webwiseforradio.com/site_files/368/Media/3-4-11_Mike%20Nichols.mp3