Supreme Court Rules That Lab Analysts Must Testify on Results

This week something unusual occurred in Washington, D.C. The two Supreme Court Justices who cling most tightly to strict interpretation of the constitution, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia joined with three liberals, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter to render a decision that does not find favor with conservative, law an order devotees.

The New York Times reports that in a 5-4 decision the high court ruled that in order for the prosecution to offer government crime laboratory test results to a jury they must first have the testimony of a person responsible for creating the tests results.
The ruling comes about in the wake of a wave of scandals at crime laboratories across the country that proved live testimony was required to show potential lab result's shortcomings. One study concluded that law enforcement agencies "face pressure to sacrifice methodology for the sake of expediency".
Scott Burns, the executive director of the National District Attorney's Association calls the decision a "train wreck" because bringing so many analysts to court is overly burdensome for already cash strapped law enforcement agencies.
However, the majority found that the rights guaranteed to defendants by the sixth amendment of the constitution to confront witnesses in a criminal prosecution had to be strictly interpreted.
Justices Alito and Roberts, George W. Bush appointees, were joined in the dissent, seemingly following conservative values rather than strict analysis of the constitution and judicial interpretation. Here, however, they found some unusual bedfellows.