The full transcript can be found here (thanks Neil) and you can listen to it here.
I also will be using scotusblog.com as a resource. It is a fantastic site. The only reason why I know it exists is because of BMG.
In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, Jeffery Fisher, appellant, argues that:
In Crawford v. Washington, this Court made clear that the right to confrontation, at its core, is a protection against a system of trial by affidavit.
In my own words, if evidence is entered and the evidence is say test results of what a substance is and maybe where it came from, that evidence cannot be just “mailed” in. The defendent’s counsel has the right to cross examine the human being who did the testing. Not his supervisor, but the person who actually ran the test.
From Lyle Denniston at scotusblog.com:
The case, at its core, is simple: is a crime lab report a form of testimony, so that the prosecution may not use it at trial to buttress its case unless the technician or chemist who prepared it is at the trial to defend the test results under cross-examination?
Ok, with that out of the way, lets talk about AG Coakley who represented Massachusetts as the highest lawyer in our land. She was fighting for test results and the like to be able to be admitted into evidence without the actual lab tech having to testify.
She starts off arguing that certificates of drug tests are not “testimonial statements” and “thereby not covered by the confrontation clause”.
Ms. Coakley: Because clearly, the kinds of affidavits that are the subject of Confrontation Clause analysis could not be submitted by that. I think this is an exception to that. And so –…
Justice Souter: Well, then that’s what you have got to explain to me. Why is it an exception?
First mistake. This is supposed to be the argument. This is what seemingly she is there to argue. Again, not very experienced with this, but I would assume judges don’t like to tell lawyers what things they should be arguing.
From scotusblog.com:
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley had trouble from the outset drawing distinctions between eyewitness testimony for which confrontation is required and crime lab reports, as Justice David H. Souter, along with Scalia, pushed the point. She also failed to impress with a key point both in her brief and her oral argument: the Court has never had a confrontation case involving a lab report.
She continues to not impress and actual get to a point where she throws out the wrong facts and Justice Roberts has to correct her while she is speaking, again from scotusblog.com:
Before long, Justice Kennedy was stressing to Coakley the arguments he said she had to be making, and mildly chastized her when she did not do so. When he asked her to comment on why California was not having problems with confronton over lab reports, she at first responded that California was one of 35 states supporting Massachusetts in the case (only to have Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., point out that she was in error on that). Then she said she had no information on California, but contended that confrontation of the kind would be “an undue burden” in Massachusetts.
Her closing and final arguments are also weak and she is “sharply retorted” by Justice Kennedy. You should listen to the audio as it is fairly clear to me that he is less than impressed with her argument that it would be a bad strategic decision of a prosecutor to rely on a lab report in a particular instance. Which of course, I am not sure why she is even arguing at this point, but ok… from scotusblog.com:
As she was preparing to close, the Chief Justice asked for Coakley’s reaction if a lab test report was the central issue in a case, she said it would be “a bad strategic decision” to rely only on a report of that kind. But Kennedy sharply retorted: “That’s a non-reason.”
Massachusetts lost the case 5-4.
Whether you are supporting Martha Coakley or still undecided(I am supporting Mike Capuano) we should be looking at each candidate on their records and values. I know where Mike Capuano stands and I know what he values because of his record in Congress. If this case is part of Coakley’s record, I will say that I am unimpressed and if voters are considering sending her across the street to the Senate, they should consider her performance on the biggest stage their is for her and every attorney. This was the high point of her career as a lawyer and she struck out IMO. Lets keep her where she is, so she can become a better AG first.
Also, as a women I am offended as to why a candidate is a better candidate than another because of gender. It is nonsensical and lowers anyone’s standing if that is one of the reasons someone is voting for any candidate in any race.
It is virtually impossible to determine a “best” candidate for any particular job or position. There are too many variables in experience, education, background, etc. for a clearcut determination of “best” to be made. Often candidates have such great differences among them that one ends up comparing not apples to oranges, but apples to toasters.
<
p>Most people can agree that there is some “bar” that candidates should be able to exceed. Anyone who crosses that bar constitutes a “good enough” candidate, worth our consideration. A voter could rest easy if any of those candidates is elected. And at that point one must look for other variables to decide who deserves a vote.
<
p>Why not look to the candidate who brings something to the table that the other candidates do not? Just as Deval Patrick brought a fresh perspective and set of preferences, values, and understandings affected by race, so Martha Coakley brings the perspective and set of preferences, values and understandings affected by gender.
<
p>If we want all points of view to be presented and all interests to be considered in our political deliberations, it can only help to have a diverse group of candidates–and office holders. How does that “lower anyone’s standing”?
I think the above makes the case that Candidate Coakley doesn’t pass the bar of good enough, and I would be willing to listen to anyone who can make the case that she did her job well enough in this case.
I think this is where you make your ultimate mistake. Theoretically, yes, it’s hard to categorically state that someone is exhaustively better than someone else in all regards. But this isn’t a matter of “who’s the better person.” We’re asking who has the experience and competence to lead us in the Senate. Nothing against apples, but there’s plenty of merit in comparing apples to toasters if you’re trying to decide what to use to make your morning toast.
<
p>I’m a woman. I was a Hilary supporter. I understand the impulse to support a woman when neither candidate is clearly preferable. But as a progressive, I think it sets us back to chose a lesser candidate simply because of her gender.
<
p>I agree completely with the original poster. This case just ices the cake. Coakley has shown again and again that she’s not ready for leadership. She clearly values politics above partiality–she reduced a major corruption investigation to “political maneuvering” just to secure the Mayor’s endorsement. She’s obviously underperforming at the job she has now. If she can’t handle that one, why give her another?
I disagree.
<
p>When making a decision, we must choose who we think is able to do the best job. No two people bring the exact same experience and credentials, THAT is virtually impossible. Now let’s look at the job at hand.
<
p>Legislator.
<
p>The U.S. Senate happens to be the most powerful legislative body in our country, so it is of the utmost importance that the person elected knows how to do their job effectively. If you take a look at Martha’s career, this SCOTUS thing aside, it is obvious that she is a bright and talented lawyer who knows a thing or two, but that’s not what this job calls for.
<
p>Mike Capuano has been a legislator in Washington for over 10 years. He is a member of three congressional committees, three party committees, and has successfully obtained funding to assist African nations such as Sudan.
<
p>Now if Martha’s next career move was to be the Attorney General of the United States, that would make a lot more sense. But it’s not.
<
p>We are going through a VERY critical time in our nation’s history. We are fighting 2 wars overseas, the impending threat of nuclear proliferation and not to mention, there’s a downturn in our economy. We cannot afford to send someone to Washington who does not know how Capitol Hill works. We need someone who has already developed close relationships with other legislators in Washington. Someone who has proven they can be an effective law maker. We absolutely cannot elect someone based on the hope that they can do their job.
<
p>In the interests of disclosure, I support Mike Capuano.
<
p>
Apart from how well Coakley represented the Commonwealth’s position, the position itself is problematic for me. That Coakley continued to make the argument on appeal, right up the the Supreme Court were it lost (thankfully), says a lot to me about the trade offs Coakley is willing to make.
<
p>Coakley made the argument that a defendant accused of drug possession does not have the right to question the technician (who tested the substance and certified it as a controlled substance in an affidavit) based on a legal theory that the drug lab report is not testimony and therefore not covered by the confrontation clause.
<
p>In other words “I hereby certify that the substance X is cocaine” is not testimony according to Coakley and the Commonwealth. Under this legal theory a defendant would not have the right to ask the technician;
<
p>The Commonwealth and other states that prosecute drug possession and drug dealing crimes, have identified this testimony as a burden on law enforcement and state crime labs. It’s costly and it puts a strain on the skilled staff.
<
p>The Commonwealth wanted to eliminate the Constitutional right of the accused to subpoena the crime lab tech to testify at trial and answer questions. This was Coakley and the Commonwealth’s solution to the government’s burden – to rollback the constitutional rights of the accused. Perhaps an attorney more concerned with Constitutional rights would instead take action to insure that crime labs are staffed adequately to handle the spate of drug cases.
<
p>As a voter, I would choose to spend more money on state crime labs and afford all suspects a fair trial rather than assume the crime lab got it right and forever revoke the right of the accused to cross-examine the technician whose affidavit may well be the evidence that convinces a jury of guilt.
<
p>
rather than focusing on this stuff. Really. Mike has plenty of good qualities that will make him a good senator…but focusing on this stuff (and a 5-4 decision before the Supreme Court must have had some merits, no? It wasn’t 8-1, 7-2, etc.)is not a winner. Help people evaluate your candidate by his qualities, his goals and objectives for the Senate.
<
p>Personally – I’m on the fence. I like both candidates. At last in my grasp, is the means to finally put a woman from Massachusetts in the Senate. The only way we get a female president is with more women in Congress and it is important to me, as a pre-Title IX woman. I watched how Hillary was treated by the MSM, and it wasn’t pretty. You may have the luxury of “being offended” all you want by gender politics…but for those of us who have been waiting and struggling in politics for decades – we don’t have that luxury.
<
p>On the other hand…most of my family will be supporting Mike; we know him and admire his work. It would be good to finally have someone in the Senate who gets Mike’s constituency – urban working class people. As a former mayor of Somerville, Mike gets the challenges that municipalities face when federal and state aid dry up. He gets what happens when COPS grant money gets diverted to a war effort. He understands how well-intentioned, but unfunded mandates can evicerate a city or town budget.
<
p>Two great candidates. I wish they weren’t in the same race together.
<
p>
<
p>I will enthusiastically support and work for Martha Coakley should she choose to run against John Kerry in 2014. I will enthusiastically support and work for the winner of the Democratic primary in the upcoming special election.
<
p>I support Mike Capuano in the December primary because his record, enthusiasm, and campaign better aligns with the national, local, and personal (for me) priorities of:
start another post and pitch my candidate, but this post was intended to allow undecided voters like yourself to consider what I think is a very important piece of AG Coakley’s resume.
<
p>Having said that, lets get back to the point of the post. Isn’t her performance on the largest stage for any Attorney, subject to discussion? I think it should be front and center. Not because she did poorly, but because it is a large part of her record that we can measure. Agree, disagree, why?
<
p>
Martha is a prosecutor and her job is to take down the bad guys. Did she take a bold and strategic stand at the SC? Probably – but 4 our of 9 of them bought it. I’d say she’s doing her job. She wants to win cases. Let me ask you this – if 5 of the 9 bought it, would this even be the subject of debate?
<
p>I also think that in terms of the politics of performance, clothing, demeanor, you name it – women candidates are bloody nitpicked to death and every misstep becomes larger than life. That’s why I don’t get wrapped around the axle over this kind of stuff.
<
p>So – does this post convince me that Martha’s a non-performer? Nope. 4/9 ain’t bad. Let’s focus on what Mike can do rather than the “near-hit” Martha had at the SC.
<
p>Yes absolutely. My objection is not based on the outcome, it’s based on Coakley and the Commonwealth’s position because of what she argued for – a roll back of the constitutional rights of the accused, and why she argued for it – to save money. Read the reason explained.
but fine…I understand your objection. I can also see her point. If an affadavit addressed all those questions…why drag the technician in? Pinata time?
<
p>
<
p>The affidavits don’t address those questions.
<
p>
<
p>What Coakley is trying to establish is a Supreme Court precedent (nationwide) that eleiminates the requiremnt of the state to produce the lab tech as a witness at trial to answer questions about how they certified the substance, notwithstanding error rates, experience level of the tech, scientific underpinning of the test, etc.
<
p>
it’s still not a deal-breaker for me. I think she’s doing what she thinks is right. I may not agree with her, but four supreme court justices found her arguments compellling.
<
p>All that aside…I still think kaj would be better off focusing on her candidate’s achievements, qualities and vision for the Senate seat than engaging in this stuff. Tell me why I should like Mike!
an insight into Coakley’s values, which I consider not especially liberal in this case.
<
p>The policy she pursued to establish as the ‘law of the land’ would elevate the state’s interest over individuals’ Constitutional right to confront their accuser.
<
p>The justices that voted in favor of Coakley’s argument were Kennedy, Alito, Breyer, and Roberts, who concluded that the Confrontation Clause’s requirements need not be applied to “scientific evidence”.
<
p>What is the nature of “scientific evidence”. Is it always right, truly unimpeachable? Hardly! Who here thinks “scientific evidence” is unambiguously accurate and would bet their own freedom on it? Or happily concede their right to probe the process of evidence analysis to reveal flaws in the conclusion drawn about it presented as conclusive at trial?
<
p>Let’s take for example, repressed memory “science” on which Coakley has gotten a conviction with no corroborating or physical evidence. Repressed memory “science” is junk science. Since that trial, experts in the field have debunked it. The priest convicted by it has won his appeal on that issue. While Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts would have no bearing on that case, it’s illustrative of the use of “scientific evidence” in a trial, evidence that is both damning and invalid.
<
p>Sometimes, breathalyzers haven’t been calibrated and they give false positives. Drug tests for pot are known to be unreliable. Sometimes, DNA samples are contaminated. But in Coakley’s world, if she had won, the accused would have no right to question the tech with first hand knowledge of “scientific process” that produced the “scientific evidence”.
<
p>
It’s a data point, but with all due respect, you have to know that Mike has his own “data points.” They all do. Between now and the election, I will be sifting through the data points on all the candidates, trying to figure out which of them will make the best Senator. The stakes are high.
then we’d have another measure of job performance. For better or worse, job performance as a law enforcement officer is what we have.
for most voters…they’re not going to care. They’re not. Only political junkies and defendent advocates are going to give a rat’s patootie about this. Like I said, stick to what’s good about Mike, rather than this.
I think there is a high likelihood that federal indictments will come down against key figures in Mayor Menino’s administration — Buddy Cianci comes to mind.
<
p>I try to stay focused on Mike Capuano’s positive attributes, because I think he wins on those alone.
<
p>I also think this is about more than winning the next election. Whoever wins this seat will be a rightwing attack magnet. Mike Capuano has vulnerability because of his association with Rep. Murtha — and he will be attacked for that. He will defend himself.
<
p>I feel that Martha Coakley will be targeted for her ties to the City Hall machine when multiple indictments against key figures of that machine are in the public eye. She is already being attacked because the actions against the disability/pension abuse scandal come from the feds instead of her office. She is, fairly or unfairly, being portrayed as a tool of corrupt Massachusetts political machines. She has not, so far, demonstrated to me any sophistication at handling that perception.
<
p>The attacks against Ms. Coakley will make the Willie Horton ads look tame. I fear that her response will be comparable to Mike Dukakis’s infamous tank picture. Her vulnerability will allow the rightwing to distract attention from vital issues, and I am very sure they will take maximal advantage of that vulnerability.
<
p>I’m really not trying to savage Martha Coakley. I really am concerned that she has, perhaps inadvertently, created an enormous vulnerability — a vulnerability that Mike Capuano does not have.
<
p>I had to listen to the rightwing discount Senator Kennedy’s many accomplishments for decades because of his vulnerability. The election of Martha Coakley will blow hydrogen and oxygen on the still-smoldering fire lit by Senator Kennedy in 1969 and still burning four decades later.
<
p>Hillary Clinton was a great candidate and would have made a great president. Senator Kennedy articulated the public’s weariness of old battles that the nomination of Hillary Clinton would re-ignite.
<
p>In my view, the election of Martha Coakley will reignite the fires of “Another corrupt Massaschusetts liberal” in a way that I am, frankly, weary of. Yes, those charges are false. So were that attacks against Mike Dukakis and later against John Kerry. In Mike Capuano, as we did with Barrack Obama, we have a chance to move on.