As prosecutors nationally decried the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow criminal defendants to cross-examine forensic analysts, Colorado district attorneys say the ruling won’t have an impact here because a similar statute is already in place.
“It should not have an effect on the practice in Colorado,” said Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey.
In Colorado, lawyers must indicate 10 days before trial whether they want a lab analyst to testify about the results of a report. If no request is made, the lab reports are automatically admitted.
The Supreme Court’s decision Thursday affirming the right of defendants to confront even lab analysts involved in their cases resulted from a Massachusetts cocaine-trafficking convict who challenged the state’s lab report that bags of white powder reportedly belonging to him contained cocaine.
Prosecutors in Boston submitted only an analyst’s report to verify that the powder was cocaine, and the defendant argued that he had a right to cross-examine the analyst about the results. The justices agreed.
The National District Attorneys Association blasted the court’s decision, saying it would cost states too much money and resources to have a lab analyst come to court and testify on every criminal case.
Colorado’s existing statute was mentioned in the Supreme Court’s opinion.
The justices wrote that many large states like Colorado already implement a “confrontation clause,” and states that don’t have a similar statute on the books are not likely to suffer “dire consequences” because of Thursday’s ruling.
Paul Farley, an associate U.S. attorney in Colorado, said federal prosecutors are still analyzing Thursday’s decision.
“We’re examining it closely and it is too early to say what the impact of the ruling might be,” he said.
Morrissey said that in state court, challenging a lab report depends on the nature of a case. If the defendant claims that the cocaine does not belong to them, then the defense won’t be about whether the substance was cocaine.
“Then the defense is not going to care if you have a lab report because it’s not their defense,” he said.
But Morrissey said allowing the admission of the reports rather than calling in an analyst does save trial time.
Ted C. Tow, executive director of the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council, agrees with Morrissey that most of the time, especially with drug cases, the issue is not about whether the lab report is correct. He does not expect the justices’ ruling to have a negative impact on the state.
“It’s hard to tell because I never prosecuted when we never had it,” he said.
Felisa Cardona: 303-954-1219 or fcardona@denverpost.com
