Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Underdog

Criminal Law

: Underdog

Melendez Diaz's footnote 1 elucidates, but does not limit, the wonderful M-D opinion.

By Marks & Katz, LLC

Soon after its release, I felt resistance to Crawford v. Washington,  541 U.S. 36 (2004), by many judges, concerning Crawford?s prohibition on testimonial hearsay at trial where the declarant does not testify. Now I feel resistance to Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009) which tells judges to follow Crawford. At a recent criminal bench trial, the judge seemed to take comfort in Melendez?s footnote 1 -- whether or not relying much on it -- before overruling my objection to a cop?s testimony about the results of running a license plate number for the owner?s address. The essence of Melendez-Diaz?s footnote 1 is the following passage:  "It is up to the prosecution to decide whatsteps in the chain of custody are so crucial as to require evidence; butwhat testimony is introduced must (if the defendant objects) be introduced live...continue to full post

Full post as published by Underdog on September 14, 2009 (boomark / email).