Go to navigation Go to content
Toll-Free: (888) DUI-LWYR
Phone: (703) 361-6100
The Wilson Law Firm

The Supreme Court says: It is the government’s duty to produce witnesses to prove the case at trial and that duty cannot be shifted to the accused

Lawyers for the prosecution made the "waiver" argument  - that Melendez-Diaz could have subpoenaed the analyst, and failing to do so amounts to a waiver of the right to confront the analyst.  The Supreme Court of the United States rejected this argument as well and said the fact that the accused could have subpoenaed a witness to appear for trial is no substitute for the right of confrontation.  The Court went on to note that converting the prosecution's duty under the Confrontation Clause to the defendant's privilege shifts the consequence of a witness' failure to appear from the government to the accused.  It seems obvious to me, but the Court said the value in the Confrontation Clause is not replaced by a system which allows the government to conduct a trial by affidavit and waits for the accused to bring in the prosecution witnesses if he chooses.

Live Chat