White v. Illinois.
Here is a point from Professor Friedman about not presuming labs are as proficient as they say.
I have no doubt that Cellmark runs very proficient labs. But blog reader Patsy Myers points out that if you do a search for "Cellmark falsified evidence" you come up with a pretty substantial set of problems that they have encountered in the past. For example, the company has not been immune to professional misconduct affecting multiple cases.
And consider one case in which a Cellmark analyst discovered an error while testifying in court.Apparently, Cellmark diminishes the importance of this episode by pointing out that it did in fact correct the error!
Of course, reliability is not — or at least certainly should not be — the point. But the fact that Cellmark has a substantial history of difficulty should, I think, give some pause even to those who are ready to make accreditation a substitute for the confrontation prescribed by the Constitution.
And of course in the world of military justice we have USACIL and former employee Mr. Mills.
Last week SCOTUSBlog had Williams and confrontation as it’s topic of the week. The various posts and comments can be found here.
Standing by for a decision in due course.