Scientific evidence is not infallible and lab analysts make mistakes. In the summer of 2009 Justice Scalia, on behalf of the U.S. Supreme Court, penned the opinion styled Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. ____ (2009). In its opinion the Supreme Court extended every criminal defendant’s Constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. Specifically the Court guaranteed the defendant’s right to question and examine, in court, lab analysts and their conclusions regarding forensic evidence. In the past, lab analysts were to merely submit an affidavit of their findings and the court would enter that affidavit into evidence as conclusive proof of its content and conclusions. In Virginia today as a result of Melendez-Diaz each defendant now has the right, in drug and DUI cases, to demand that an analyst be present in court. This means that during the trial the defendant’s attorney may examine and expose the lab analyst’s faulty conclusions regarding forensic evidence. Boone Beale’s attorneys make full use of the opinion in Melendez-Diaz to create the most just and desirable result for clients.

As Justice Scalia prudently put it, “Confrontation is designed to weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well. Serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials.” Boone Beale exists to protect your right to confrontation as well as every other Constitutional right inalienably yours when you step into the courtroom.