Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
SJC hears challenge to substitute DNA analyst testimony after Smith v. Arizona
Summary
In oral argument in Commonwealth v. Antonio B. Nascimento DePena, defense counsel asked the court to reverse a conviction based on admission of a substitute laboratory analyst's testimony; the Commonwealth conceded evidentiary error but argued any error was harmless.
The Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Antonio B. Nascimento DePena over whether testimony from a substitute or reviewing DNA analyst violated the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause and Massachusetts evidentiary precedents.
Defense counsel Attorney Benyon told the court the case “is pretty clear and on point” with respect to Smith v. Arizona and argued the substitute analyst’s testimony improperly conveyed the underlying analyst’s results to the jury, which created prejudice for the defendant.
The issue, Benyon said, was not whether a reviewing analyst can describe lab procedures but whether the witness impermissibly vouched for another analyst’s raw test results and calculations. “It's those calculations that even though she did them, they're still based on the underlying chemist's work,” Benyon said, adding that the jury could treat that…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
