FOURTH MELENDEZ-DIAZ CASE: WE WIN AND WE LOSE THIS ONE
This is the fourth California Court of Appeal case applying Melendez-Diaz (129 S.Ct. 2527). And this Court of Appeal splits the baby in half.
Melendez-Diaz held that use of affidavits from criminalists violated the 6th Amendment. Even the DAs agreed that Melendez-Diaz wiped out Geier (41 Cal.4th 555), the case from the California Supremes which said it was OK for a supervisor to testify to the results of a test done by a subordinate, even though the
supervisor never saw the actual test.
This Court of Appeal claims that Geier is distinguishable from Melendez-Diaz for two reasons. First, in Geier the supervisor testified, while no one testified in Melendez-Diaz.
Second, the affidavit in Melendez-Diaz was prepared a week after the test, while
the report in Geier was prepared at the time of the test. Incidentally, I can't imagine how your DA could ever prove when the report was prepared, other than by inadmissible hearsay.
Anyway, the Court of Appeal says that descriptions in the report about the physical exam of the victim are admissible, but the narrative description by the victim about the injuries is testimonial and thus not admissible. Then they find harmless error.
We now have two outright wins, one loss, and this wacko case.
People v. Gutierrez; 2009 DJ DAR ; DJ, 9/ /09; C/A 2nd, Div. 1
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/
