Bahr Elizabeth L, Katz Rebecca
Department of the Navy, Strategic Systems Programs, Office of Counsel, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Biosecur Bioterror. 2009 Dec;7(4):365-70. doi: 10.1089/bsp.2009.0053.
In June 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted in Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts that the admission of a laboratory analyst's certificate to validate forensic evidence against a defendant violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. The Court stated that if a prosecution wished to use forensic science evidence against a defendant, the plaintiff must ensure that an actual lab analyst could testify live before the court as to the nature of the laboratory certificate being presented against the defendant, in order to uphold a defendant's constitutional right to confront the adverse witnesses against him or her. The opinion itself, as well as dicta in both the majority and the dissenting opinions, has potential implications for the success of any future prosecutions of alleged biological weapons use involving microbial forensics. Not only does the Melendez-Diaz opinion create an added burden on laboratory investigators, but the case called into question the reliability of the use of forensic science in the courtroom. Analysts and policymakers should be aware of this ruling and any potential impact the Court may have on the ability to successfully prosecute a biological weapons use event.
2009年6月，美国最高法院在“梅伦德斯 - 迪亚兹诉马萨诸塞州案”中认定，采纳实验室分析员的证书来证实针对被告的法医证据，侵犯了被告依据美国宪法第六修正案享有的质证权。法院指出，如果检方希望使用法医科学证据指控被告，检方必须确保实际进行检测的实验室分析员能够亲自出庭，就所提交的针对被告的实验室证书的性质作证，以维护被告面对不利于自己的证人的宪法权利。该判决本身以及多数意见和少数意见中的附带意见，对于未来涉及微生物法医鉴定的任何涉嫌生物武器使用案件的起诉成功与否都可能产生影响。“梅伦德斯 - 迪亚兹案”的判决不仅给实验室调查人员增加了负担，还对法庭上法医科学使用的可靠性提出了质疑。分析人员和政策制定者应了解这一裁决以及法院可能对成功起诉生物武器使用事件的能力产生的任何潜在影响。
