John Doe DNA Warrants OK'd by State Supreme Court: Los Angeles Times writer Maura Dolan reports on a California Supreme Court ruling allowing for prosecutors to file arrest warrants based on DNA left at the scene of the crime. The warrant would allow prosecutors to get around legal deadlines. The 5-2 ruling, written by Justice Ming W. Chin, upheld the conviction of Paul Eugene Robertson for sexual offenses even though prosecutors obtained a DNA "match" after Robertson's DNA had been illegally placed in the state's DNA database. Sacramento prosecutors filed an arrest warrant for "John Doe, unknown male," on Aug. 21, 2000, four days before the legal deadline, or statute of limitations, for filing charges would run. Prosecutors attached a DNA profile to the warrant from evidence left at the crime. "We conclude that, when there is no more particular, accurate or reliable means of identification available to law enforcement, an arrest warrant or a complaint that describes the person to be arrested by a fictitious name and his unique DNA profile...satisfies the particularity requirements" of law, Chin wrote. Kent's post can be found here.
"Supreme Court Refuses Noriega Case and Disposes of Another": New York Times writer Adam Liptak reports on Monday's Supreme Court decision to block the extradition to France of Manuel Antonio Noriega, the deposed Panamanian dictator. The Court provided no reasoning for its decision not to hear Noriega's appeal, while Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from the decision not to hear the case. They stated that the Court had missed an important opportunity to clarify how federal courts should treat claims from prisoners of war. Justice Thomas said the case would have provided "much needed guidance" to the other two branches "without the unnecessary delay and other complications that could burden a decision on these questions in Guantanamo or other detainee litigation arising out of the conflct with Al Qaeda."
The Court's decision to send the crime lab case, Briscoe v. Virginia, back to the lower courts meant that it would not cut back on or clarify a major ruling from last June requiring lab technicians, and other forensic specialists, to be available to testify at trials. That ruling barred prosecutors from presenting crime lab reports without testimony from the analysts who prepared them. State prosecutors told the court that the decision from June, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, was imposing a major and unwarranted burden and "is already proving unworkable." Lauren's post can be found here regarding the issue.
"Supreme Court Refuses Noriega Case and Disposes of Another": New York Times writer Adam Liptak reports on Monday's Supreme Court decision to block the extradition to France of Manuel Antonio Noriega, the deposed Panamanian dictator. The Court provided no reasoning for its decision not to hear Noriega's appeal, while Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from the decision not to hear the case. They stated that the Court had missed an important opportunity to clarify how federal courts should treat claims from prisoners of war. Justice Thomas said the case would have provided "much needed guidance" to the other two branches "without the unnecessary delay and other complications that could burden a decision on these questions in Guantanamo or other detainee litigation arising out of the conflct with Al Qaeda."
The Court's decision to send the crime lab case, Briscoe v. Virginia, back to the lower courts meant that it would not cut back on or clarify a major ruling from last June requiring lab technicians, and other forensic specialists, to be available to testify at trials. That ruling barred prosecutors from presenting crime lab reports without testimony from the analysts who prepared them. State prosecutors told the court that the decision from June, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, was imposing a major and unwarranted burden and "is already proving unworkable." Lauren's post can be found here regarding the issue.
Leave a comment