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.
5 comments:
Let me guess. Her name is Ann? Last name rhymes with 'Hines'???
No, but I suspect that they all get the same brainwashing, er, training.
Ha! A well known name around here, she was supposed to blow the whistle on my ex wife when she slapped my daughter in the face because she was supposedly mouthing off. I found this out after the fact, of course. Was given some mumbling nonsense of giving the mother the benefit of the doubt. I never hit/threatened my kids and I'm in the same boat as George. Can you say "double standard"? Sure, I knew you could!!
Lemme guess again. ...CJ??? Geoffa?
Look at how they make their money. They get business from the court by telling the court what it wants to hear. If I find a good one, I will post her name.
Post a Comment