The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him.  An example is when the prosecution attempts to introduce lab reports without calling the lab technician that actually conducted the tests.  This issue was recently addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Bullcoming vs. New Mexico.  Bullcoming was charged with the offense of DWI.  The principal evidence against Bullcoming was a forensic laboratory report certifying that his blood-alcohol concentration was above the threshold for aggravated DWI.  In Bullcoming the Court held:

1)  The Confrontation Clause does not permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification, made in order to prove a fact at a criminal trial, through the in-court testimony of an analyst who did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the certification.

2)  The accused’s right is to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.

This week in the 212th District Court of Galveston County, Texas, Judge Criss granted a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. Directed verdicts in criminal cases are rare. Judge Criss believes this is the first time in her thirteen (13) years on the bench to grant a directed verdict.

The defendant in the case was charged with the aggravated robbery of a the Dollar General Store in Texas City. Identity of the robbers was the contested issue. The defendant claimed he was in another town at the time of the robbery. The state presented a witness who testified she was able to identify the defendant from a photographic lineup shown to her by police. The judge granted the directed verdict after a 911 tape was produced wherein the same witness told her supervisor and the 911 operator that she didn’t know the race of the suspects. Store video showed the suspects both wore ski masks. The judge granted the directed verdict based on insufficient evidence of identity.

The right of a jury trial is a valuable thing. That said, any thing can happen at trial. We hope that justice will always be done. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen. More often then we like to admit, people are convicted of crimes they didn’t commit based on faulty eye witness testimony. I don’t know other details of this case but I’m glad we have a judge with the courage to grant a directed verdict when the evidence is just not there.

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/238950