Comments on: Trash Talk – Raider Nation Edition

By: bmaz

bmaz — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:33:12 +0000

Chris Berman just called our stadium “The Big Toaster”. Heh heh, with the roof open, that is pretty apt.

By: john in sacramento

john in sacramento — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:03:11 +0000

Meant, take Cal and the points

The spread was 21 or 22 last I saw.

Got the score wrong but my guess on the spread was right on

Just a guess … Cards will cover tonight over the 9ers, they are -10, will win by 17

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:58:54 +0000

Thanks Bmaz. It’s a matter of law, not that the defendent can call the scientist as a witness but rather that the state must make the case and prove every element of it.

By: freepatriot

freepatriot — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:51:16 +0000

I saw an interview with Ted Hendricks once. He said he couldn’t understand why people hated the raiders:

thanks to us you have the “No Stickum” rule, the “No Clubbing in the head” rule, and the “No Fumbling forward into the endzone” rule, so we contributed a lot to the NFL

I hate the raiders, but I really like some of their players …

By: freepatriot

freepatriot — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:39:19 +0000

if it applies to reasonable doubt, then the lawyer shoulda brought all that up in front of the jury

don’t ya gotta establish a foundation to argue in an appeal ???

By: freepatriot

freepatriot — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:36:10 +0000

there ain’t any constitutional guarantee that says you gotta have COMPETENT counsel

any fool with a law license will do

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:44:25 +0000

Neil – It boils down to this. The state is required to prove not just the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, but every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt as to any individual element constitutes impermissible doubt as to the whole. In a drug case, proving that the substance at issue is, in fact the drug alleged, and that it was in a usable form and quantity, is an element of the crime charged. It is incumbent on the prosecution to establish this on the record. Allowing the prosecution to blithely enter some piece of paper on this critical element and then requiring the defendant to affirmatively disprove it if he desires, impermissibly shifts the burden of proof to the defendant by making him disprove the evidence instead of the prosecution proving it. That is contrary to the constitutional mandate that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty by the state. Cops, evidentiary custodial chains, police evidence rooms, crime labs and prosecutors make errors, intentional mischief, and all sorts of other mistakes with truly alarming frequency. If you don’t work in the criminal justice system, you probably have no idea of just how bad it is. The state should have to fully prove their case, and this includes the credibility and propriety of their alleged evidence.

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:20:33 +0000

WASHINGTON—[MA] Attorney General Martha Coakley is preparing to argue before the US Supreme Court in a case to decide whether prosecutors can use crime lab reports as evidence without having the forensic analyst who prepared them testify. AP

Melendez-Diaz is scheduled for oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Monday, November 10, 2008, at 1:00 p.m.

Melendez-Diaz was tried on the indictments in Suffolk Superior Court in September 2004. The drug analysis certificates were presented as evidence at trial. The chemist from the crime laboratory who prepared the reports did not testify at trial. The jury found Melendez-Diaz guilty and he was sentenced to three years in State Prison, and three years of probation.

The documents I have do not indicate if counsel for Melendez-Diaz called the chemist (who prepared the ‘drug analysis certificate’) as a witness at trial but I assme they did not, and it appears the appeal is asserting the Commonwealth’s affirmative responsibility to present the specialist, if they submit the report as evidence.

Would anybody argue that the state doesn’t not have to produce the scientist if they are subpoena’d by the defense? No.

So if the defendant has the right to question the scientist, why must the state produce them if the defense counsel does not put them on the witness list?

The issue before the Supreme Court in Melendez-Diazis whether reports such as drug analysis certificates from a state laboratory may be used as evidence in a criminal trial without calling the expert who prepared them to testify. The defendant asserts that the admission of such reports without calling the expert who prepared them is a violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which affords an accused individual with the right to confront witnesses against him. The Commonwealth contends that drug analysis certificates are non-testimonial, and therefore not subject to the Confrontation Clause. The Commonwealth also argues that defendants have ample opportunity to review and challenge drug analysis through pretrial procedures, and that a rule requiring live testimony of lab analysts in every case would create unwarranted burdens and expenses for states.
OAG Commonwealth MA Press Release Nov6,08

Will it be on CSPAN radio? It would be good to hear Coakley argue the case. IANAL, which you figured out by now.

By: randiego

randiego — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 04:34:00 +0000

great game!

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 04:16:25 +0000

Stupid management; wasted challenges and time outs