U.S. Supreme Court
Jul. 18, 2012
Williams v. Illinois: signed, sealed -- testimonial
The plurality seems to place importance on trivial issues--like whether a lab report is signed and notarized. By Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine School of Law
Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law
UC Berkeley School of Law
Erwin's most recent book is "Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism." He is also the author of "Closing the Courthouse," (Yale University Press 2017).
In Williams v. Illinois, 2012 DJDAR 9137 (2012), the Supreme Court created enormous confusion on an issue that arises constantly in criminal cases: when may prosecutors use laboratory reports as evidence without having the lab analyst who prepared the report testify. This was the third time in the last four years that the Supreme Court has grappled with the question of how laboratory reports are to be presented in criminal cases.
The most important change in criminal trials ...For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In