Recent Supreme Court rulings favor the accused's right to confront all of their accusers, which includes the forensic scientists that examine evidence in the lab. This means that the vast majority of individuals in the chain of evidence can be supoenaed to testify, no matter how trivial the analysis may appear. Is this overkill? Necessary? What are your thoughts?
The ruling may be a bit tedious and may give trouble to the subpoenead to testify in their producctive time. However for sense of justice to prevail no information, however small shall be overlooked. Even a small piece of information put together may yield fruitful conclusion. A testimony of one person cross checked with others may lead to valuable inferences. Also if the accusition is false, someone in the chain is liable to falter, thereby establishing truth and rule of law. Therefore even if such a ruling is overkill, it is necessary today.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.