Com v Rivera, Appeals Ct, 2/23/10

COMMONWEALTH v. RIVERA, FEBRUARY 23, 2010, APPEALS COURT

Confrontation of witness, Authentication, Ballistician’s certificate

The defendant was convicted of carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a loaded firearm. He appealed and argued the admission of the ballistic certificate during trial violated his Confrontation Right under the Sixth Amendment. The Appeals Court agreed. Under Melendez-Diaz, the government may not prove its case "via ex-parte out-of-court affidavits." Here the Court reasoned that without the certificate there was no other evidence presented that would have enabled the jury to have found the firearm was capable of firing a bullet. Since there was no objection at trial the standard of review was whether the admission of the certificate created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Court found it did and reversed the conviction.

Com v Melendez-Diaz, Appeals Ct, 2/3/10

COMMONWEALTH v. MELENDEZ-DIAZ, February 3, 2010, Appeals Court

Controlled substances, Evidence, Confrontation of witnesses, Certificate of drug analysis

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appeals Court and remanded the case to consider whether the admission of the drug analysis was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appeals Court agreed with the defendant that the error was not harmless because the analysis provided the only material evidence that the substance was cocaine.

Com v Pimental, Appeals Ct, 2/3/10

COMMONWEALTH v. PIMENTAL, FEBRUARY 3, 2010, APPEALS COURT

Controlled substances, Evidence, Confrontation of witnesses, Certificate of drug analysis

Admission of drug analysis certificates violated the defendant’s confrontation rights at trial. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the certificates provided significant evidence of the nature of the substance as heroin.