Cuccinelli calls for special session to deal with U.S. Supreme Court ruling

» 4 Comments | Post a Comment

The Republican candidate for attorney general has called for a special session of the General Assembly to deal with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that he says will force prosecutors to suspend drug and drunken driving prosecutions.

State Sen. Ken Cuccinelli of Fairfax County said the high court's Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts ruling last month could damage the criminal justice system.

The court ruled that the government must make scientists who prepare lab reports in drunken driving and drug cases available for cross examination by defense lawyers.

Under current Virginia law, defendants have the responsibility to subpoena the scientists. Some prosecutors are concerned that they might have to delay cases if the state scientists are unavailable for cross-examination.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has the authority to call a special session, or the legislature, with a two-thirds vote, could call itself into special session.

"My public safety team, including the attorney general's office, the state police and others are analyzing the ruling to determine what it might mean with respect to staffing and our forensic lab and the availability of more people to testify in court proceedings," Kaine said in an interview Thursday.

The governor added it would be "premature" to call the legislature back into session at this time.

Today, Gordon Hickey, a spokesman for Kaine, said officials are "working with the law enforcement community to find an administrative solution."

The Virginia Supreme Court has upheld Virginia's law by a 5-4 decision, which has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Cuccinelli said the U.S. Supreme Court will not reconvene to hear the case until at least October. That is too long to leave Virginia's commonwealth's attorneys in a legal limbo, he said.

Ramon E. Chalkley III, commonwealth's attorney in Hanover County, said the Supreme Court ruling has not caused any problems yet, but down the road could cause significant delays.

The campaign of Del. Steve Shannon of Fairfax, Cuccinelli's Democratic opponent, described the request as "a [public relations] stunt that would cost taxpayers money."

Mike Henry, newly named as Shannon's campaign manager, said the Republican is "attempting to cover his weak record on drunken driving laws."

Henry managed Kaine's successful campaign for governor in 2005 and Mark R. Warner's successful campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2008. He also managed Terry McAuliffe's losing bid for the nomination to run for governor earlier this year. Henry was deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2008.

Advertisement

 
View More: latest news,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by Powhatanva on July 11, 2009 at 8:59 am

I disagree with crimediver.  In the cases mentioned by the Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz as acceptable notice and demand statutes, all the statutes required the defense attorney to be given notice of the intent to use the certificate and then gave a date certain by which the defense must ask for the expert to be noticed of the defense’s intent to call the expert as a witness.

The Va. statute only requires notice.  It does not set a limit on the time frame by which the expert may or may not be called by the defense.  The burden, therefore, remains with the Commonwealth Attorney to call the expert.  I believe this deficiency can be corrected at a special session.

Flag Comment Posted by Crimediver on July 11, 2009 at 8:16 am

Currently state law allows the forensic lab’s examiner to provide a Certificate of Analysis to be used to identify the amount and type of dug or what the BAC is. It needs to be filed with the warrant 10 days prior to court to allow the defense time to subpoena the examiner if they don’t wish to stipulate what the report says. Seems like a good system. 

This Supreme Court ruling will paralyze the examiners and they will spend all day in court vs. in the lab. Big trouble for police and prosecutors. It will be like Christmas for the defense.

Flag Comment Posted by witchdoctor on July 10, 2009 at 10:50 pm

Since neither the TD or Chanel 12 site have mentioned exactly what the Supreme Court decision is, it is difficult to know what to thing. If I were going to guess, which it seems I will have to do, the two articles seem to imply that the Supreme Court has ruled that the defendant does indeed have the right to face his accusers in court, even if that accuser is a here-to-fore anonymous lab tech reading a blood alcohol test. If this is so, then the people who run the tests will have to be made available for crosexamination, because this is at the heart of our constitutional law. How this has been overlooked for so long amazes me and should shock everyone. I don’t see much use trying to legislate around it, so calling for an emergency cession would be silly.

Flag Comment Posted by Dr. Strangelove on July 10, 2009 at 10:31 pm

Is it true that the Supreme Court’s decision applies to DUI cases?  I thought Melendez-Diaz was a drug case and that it was debatable whether it applies to DUIs.

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

  • Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
  • Respect others.
  • Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
  • See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Click here to post a comment.

 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Videos
Weekend
Times-Dispatch Shop
 

Advertisement