Who Ya Gonna Call? Confusion Reigns After the Supreme Court’s Failure to Define Testimonial and Analyst in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts

A narcotics detective takes the stand in a drug case. He testifies that the substance the defendant had in his possession is consistent with heroin. The defense attorney cross-examines the detective and discovers that the substance was never tested. The prosecutor’s response: a motion to field test the substance in front of the jury. The judge grants the motion. The detective pulls a test kit from his pocket, testifies that he received two hours of online training on conducting drug tests, performs the test, and announces that the substance is in fact consistent with heroin. The jury finds defendant guilty. This scene unfolded in the Massachusetts case of Commonwealth v. Martel after a back-log at the state’s laboratory prevented timely testing of the substance in a drug case. The events in Martel transpired in the wake of United States Supreme Court precedent that may appear to promote the rights of defendants facing incriminating forensic evidence but has instead created chaos concerning the admissibility of such evidence. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Court reversed the defendant’s conviction for a drug offense because the prosecution admitted into evidence a laboratory report that stated the substance he was charged with possessing was cocaine. The analysts who prepared the report were never called to the stand, giving the defendant no opportunity for cross-examination. The majority opinion asserts that confrontation of forensic analysts who prepare reports used in criminal