Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
After Supreme Court's Smith ruling, Virginia DFS defends batch processing and offers guidance for testimony
Summary
DFS counsel summarized Smith v. Arizona, told the Scientific Advisory Committee the ruling raises confrontation-clause questions about surrogate testimony, and described steps the department is taking to preserve batch processing, prepare staff and encourage returning analysts to testify (including a $500 honorarium).
Amy Jenkins, DFS counsel, briefed the Scientific Advisory Committee on the U.S. Supreme Courtmatter Arizona v. Smith and its potential consequences for forensic testimony and lab batch-processing practices. Jenkins summarized the legal issue: whether an expert who did not perform the original testing may rely on another analyst's out-of-court statements and notes to testify without violating the Sixth Amendments Confrontation Clause.
Jenkins said the court in Smith emphasized the constitutional primacy of confrontation rights over evidentiary rules and…
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
