Coakley says curbing Bill of Rights is “important”!

Comments

1. amberpaw says

   October 25, 2009 at 10:02 pm

   Which, before Melendez-diaz v. Massachusetts was not fully definited.

   <

   p>AG Coakley took a position that the “business documents” created by an expert do not require the presence of that expert.  The USSCT clarified that the expert IS required.

   <

   p>That did NOT mean that AG Coakley was against the Bill of Rights, but that she interpreted a particular doctrine in a particular way.

   <

   p>That doctrine continues to evolve, by the way, as to when and how the “right” to have the expert be brought in to authenticate their test results can or cannot be waived.

   <

   p>Get it right.  And avoid smearing a hard-working public servant.  

   • neilsagan says

     October 26, 2009 at 4:31 am

     Coakley’s performance arguing Melendez-diaz v. Massachusetts at the Supreme Court was criticized by veteran Supreme Court reporter Lyle Denniston for her execution not for the merits of the Commonwealth’s case.

     <

     p>Coakley made an incorrect factual claim about California being party to the suit and later admitted she didn’t “have enough information about the way California works or doesn’t work” when confronted by Justice Kennedy with the fact lab technicians do take the stand in California.

     <

     p>John Paul Stevens implied Coakley was ill-prepared by not knowing how states like California handle the burden, a burden Coakley argued was great, so great that the states interest in eliminating the requirement outweighed the right of the accused under the sixth amendment to questioning the lab tech.

     <

     p>As has been noted elsewhere, it is rare that an oral argument swings the case one way or the other, nonetheless Coakley made mistakes in presenting the oral argument.

     <

     p>Here are the questions that could not be asked, by counsel for the accused, of the lab tech whose affidavit claimed the suspect possessed a controlled substance (the penalty for which is a long incarceration)

     <

     p>What is the error rate of the test you ran?
     What is your protocol and does it include running the test twice?”
     What is your training and certification?
     Were there irregularities? How would you know?

     <

     p>

     The Massachusetts courts in this case admitted into evidence affidavits reporting the results of forensic analysis which showed that material seized by the police and connected to the defendant was cocaine. The question presented is whether those affidavits are “testimonial,” rendering the affiants “witnesses” subject to the defen-dant’s right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.

     <

     p>As a person committed to individual Constitutional rights,  I fail to understand how Coakley could take the position she took. If she had won the case, she’d be putting a potentially important part of a defense beyond the reach of the accused because of a resource burden on the state. I ask myself, what would Ted do? And I think I know the answer.

     <

     p>Affidavits certifying results of a “scientific process” that determine some fact “scientifically” are already perceived as infallible by an average Joe the plumber  but in fact “scientific process” conducted by human beings is only as infallible as the system and the human being conducting it.

     <

     p>Coakley is a person who reversed her position on death penalty (for first degree murder of a policeman and repeat murder convicts) because of false convictions and yet she would eliminate the right to question the lab tech about the process used to test the substance. To me, that’s crazy.

     <

     p>It’s only fair in a system of justice to consider how legal questions, which is what this case is about, effect the very real trials of suspects who are innocent until proven guilty.  

     <

     p>

     Coakley … argued that requiring lab analysts to testify on their reports would place a huge burden on the courts, the labs, and the technicians. Drug prosecutions “would essentially grind to a halt,” she told the court in her 30-minute appearance.

     Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Coakley to explain why California, where lab technicians do take the stand, had not experienced such a burden. She responded that California was one of the 35 states supporting Massachusetts in the case. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts, in an awkward moment, had to point out later that California was not one of the 35.

     Pressed by Kennedy, Coakley said she had no substantive knowledge of California’s experience. “I don’t have enough information about the way California works or doesn’t work,” she said.

     That prompted Justice John Paul Stevens to interject, “Well, it seems to me it’s a very important point.”

     In addition, she had trouble dealing with two other justices’ questions over distinctions between crime lab reports and eyewitness testimony, and, at one point, Kennedy pounced when Coakley began to respond to a question. “That’s a nonanswer,” he interrupted, with clear irritation.

     Lyle Denniston, a veteran Supreme Court reporter who observed the session, said Coakley fared “very poorly.”

     <

     p>”Drug prosecutions “would essentially grind to a halt””  Is that a measured statement or hyperbole and if its a matter of resources, why not spend them and preserve our rights?  What is the greater cost?

2. menemsha says

   October 26, 2009 at 8:59 am

   <

   p>The Supreme Court only takes cases with merit-they don’t waste their time-
   They read the briefs in advance and know what’s coming
   Oral argument is meant to be confrontational
   Most lawyers who have defended in front of SCOTUS are ripped by the Justices-that’s just par for the course-
   If she was so pathetic as you suggest would she have garnered 4 votes with the the dissent acknowledging the merits of her case?

   <

   p>This is just more Herald-type commenting – Today’s Herald goes completely wacko by  comparing Martha Coakley to Sarah Palin-  How ridiculous and pathetically unprofessional, stupid and downright unfair.    

   <

   p>This race should be based on real issues-not made up or exaggerated to destroy the first viable woman candidate for the Senate in 221 years.
   Very shameful-

   • lynpb says

     October 26, 2009 at 11:34 am

     They are clearly out to get Martha Coakley. They call her an “ice princess”. They compare her to Palin which is just laughable. Have you hear Martha speak? She runs laps around Palin.

     <

     p>Who does the Herald want? Do they think Brown has a chance? Why do Capuano supporters quote the Herald? Do they think it is a real newspaper, next they will be quoting Fox news.

3. striker57 says

   October 26, 2009 at 11:30 am

   . . .it’s about bashing Coakley with repeated posts

   • hrs-kevin says

     October 26, 2009 at 7:49 pm

     I don’t think it would stop me from voting for her, but I am not at all happy with her position on this case. She clearly was thinking more about the convenience of prosecutors than the rights of defendants when she took this case.