As most people know, hearsay is not permitted as evidence in criminal trials. Despite this age-old legal rule, hearsay has a strange habit of making its way into criminal trials. Such was the case in a recent case involving a lawyer who was accused of smuggling drugs into a prison, and this hearsay evidence led to a conviction. However, an appeal exposed the legal error and led to the vacation of the conviction. What does this case tell us about drug trafficking charges in Massachusetts?
The Background of the Case
This case revolves around a 2018 case involving a lawyer who allegedly delivered suboxone to an inmate. This controlled substance was allegedly disguised as legal papers, and two officers confiscated these substances. Described as “orange strips,” the substances were then analyzed by analysts at a crime lab. One analyst at the lab concluded that based on her testing, the orange strips contained suboxone. A supervisor reviewed these conclusions but did not personally carry out the tests.
Substitute Chemist Testifies During Trial
During the trial, the prosecution tried to call upon the analyst who had performed the tests. However, the prosecution then called upon the supervisor instead as a “substitute chemist.” During the trial, this substitute chemist explained that she had reviewed the testing procedures carried out by the first analyst but admitted that she did not carry out any of these tests personally. During cross-examination, she also admitted that in stating that the tests were accurate, she was relying entirely on the data provided by another person.
Defense Tries to Strike Substitute Chemist’s Testimony
The defense tried to strike the testimony of the chemist, arguing that she was simply repeating what someone else had said. The defense also noted that the actual person who had performed these tests was not available to testify at the trial, making it impossible to cross-examine them. However, the judge denied the motion to strike and allowed the testimony to stand.
Supreme Court Decision Makes Appeals Court Reverse Course
The appeals court upheld the conviction. However, a major decision by the Supreme Court in 2024 changed everything. In Smith v. Arizona, the Supreme Court upheld a defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him. This is also known as the Confrontation Clause, and it is part of the United States Constitution. This case forced the appeals court in Massachusetts to rethink its decision, and the defendant’s conviction was eventually vacated because they never had the chance to confront the chemist who actually carried out the tests.
Contact an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney in Boston
This case highlights a valid defense strategy that other defendants can potentially use in drug trafficking trials. When the personal who analyzed the alleged drugs does not testify in trial, a “substitute expert” cannot testify in their place. Those who have experienced similar issues may be able to file similar appeals with help from Boston defense attorneys. Contact Edward R. Molari today to learn more.