Bruce Barket’s Insight Sought by New York Law Journal on U.S. Supreme Court Evidence Ruling

Mr. Barket was interviewed and quoted by the New York Law Journal on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling requiring that forensic evidence be presented at criminal trials by a witness who can be cross-examined -- instead of by "certificates" sworn to by police personnel.

Initial reactions to the 5-4 decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 07-591, was split over how big the burden will be on prosecutors and whether it is a cost that just has to be borne to meet the requirements of the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause. The Supreme Court said that written lab reports or affidavits alone would not satisfy a defendant's constitutional right to confront the evidence and witnesses against him or her.

Bruce Barket -- the leader of the White Collar / Criminal Defense & Investigations Group at quadrino Schwartz -- praised the decision for allowing challenges to evidence obtained through processes often perceived as infallible by the public, including jurors. "It stems from this view that science is perfect and it's not — it's frequently police officers in lab coats performing tests they do not understand," Mr. Barket said in the interview for the Law Journal.