Once more divided 5-4 on how to define the right of a criminal suspect to confront accusers, the Court rules that, if a crime lab report is offered by prosecutors, the person who did the test and prepared the report must testify, and a supervisor cannot do so in the absence of that technician.This has been one of the most divisive issues in the Supreme Court, sharply dividing both the conservatives and the liberals. I don't know why this is so contentious. It has always been one of our core civil liberties that every citizen has a constitutional right to face his accusers in court. It is in the Sixth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
This case had nothing to do with family law, but it touches on one of the most annoying things about the family court. It relies on hearsay all the time.
I currently have a therapeutic child visitation supervisor who likes to say things about me to the court that she does not want to say to my face. That is exactly backwards. If she were really interested in helping me, she would be giving me confidential advice. She would only report something to the court after discussing it with me, and giving me a chance to question her and explain everything.