Where is Ronald Reagan when you need him? About now, he could be saying to The Supreme Court, in his calm, grandfatherly way, "now there you go again" -- for the Nine Supremes lately handed down a decision that flies in the face of reason, and makes something complicated out of something intuitively simple.
The case was Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, in which the plaintiff asserted a Sixth-Amendment right to be "confronted by the witnesses against him;" in this case, the technicians and experts who build, calibrate, and use the instruments that are used these days to detect speeders, drug users, and drunks. The Court agreed, 5-4, in an opinion written by Justice Scalia, a proponent of "strict constructionism."
Some writers have already pointed out that this ruling potentially complicates the administration of the law, could entail considerable expense for states, might clog the courts, and may provide a gold mine for lawyers. Perhaps so; as an optimist, I'd prefer to think that over time, the generally high accuracy of these devices would lead to so extremely few acquittals that even most ambulance-chasers wouldn't think it worthwhile to call for these "witnesses."
In the same article (link above), it's asserted that the Justices made the right legal call. I have to disagree. I understand, of course, that a court's decision may result in changes that aren't practical, or cheap, or even fair (and Melendez v. Massachusetts is none of those). But here I think the reading is just wrong. The language of the Sixth Amendment calls for an accused in criminal cases to be able to confront "witnesses against him." Can any reasoning being really look at a breathalyzer (e.g.) and consider it in any way a "witness"? It's an instrument, a tool, not a "witness." The fact is, there are no witnesses, but that doesn't mean a crime can't have been committed, and detected. If a crime is captured on film and the perpetrator clearly identifiable, would it really make a difference if the accused questions the manufacturer of the camera? The "confrontation" would be handled easily by giving the offender a paper printout of the device's results. With this ruling, Scalia and the majority justices have "made law" as surely as any "activist" judge.
The fundamental fault here is the literal reading of the Constitution espoused by Justice Scalia. Failure to consider that words and conditions change results in inanity. Under a literal reading, no doubt, if Melendez were a woman, the court would have ruled differently, since the Amendment refers only to witnesses against him. It's as foolish an approach as taking every word of the Bible literally.
Comments