[+]thelma0 points4 points4 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]thelma[S]0 points
4 points
4 points
(+4|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
Melendez-Diaz ? A case that requires the person who signs a certificate relating to analytical instruments to actually needing to give testimony at trial.
It was a drug case (of course) related to lab equipment used where the state just gave the court a COC and the defendant demanded to examine the person who signed the COC. The lower court said it was not needed..SCOTUS said it was.
There are generally 3 ways for getting your speed in a Motor Vehicle (MV):
1) pacing - car pacing you duh
2) a speed measuring device (SMD)
3) timing you through a marked, known, distance
For (2) these fall into these two type of technologies:
a) RADAR
b) LIDAR
RADAR is calibrated by the user. LIDAR is calibrated at the factory that issues a COC, signed by someone
With LIDAR, for the COC to be admitted into evidence if that someone is not there then an objection to its admittance (COC) is appropriate. Never had one
get admitted due to Melendez-Diaz case (face it-that someone isn't going to show up for trial). w/o evidence that the SMD was calibrated, its reading is garbage. In fact, I object to its reading even being admitted into evidence via objection - lack of foundation and relevance for its admittance.
[–] thelma [S] 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago (edited ago)
Melendez-Diaz ? A case that requires the person who signs a certificate relating to analytical instruments to actually needing to give testimony at trial.
It was a drug case (of course) related to lab equipment used where the state just gave the court a COC and the defendant demanded to examine the person who signed the COC. The lower court said it was not needed..SCOTUS said it was.
There are generally 3 ways for getting your speed in a Motor Vehicle (MV):
1) pacing - car pacing you duh
2) a speed measuring device (SMD)
3) timing you through a marked, known, distance
For (2) these fall into these two type of technologies:
a) RADAR
b) LIDAR
RADAR is calibrated by the user. LIDAR is calibrated at the factory that issues a COC, signed by someone
With LIDAR, for the COC to be admitted into evidence if that someone is not there then an objection to its admittance (COC) is appropriate. Never had one get admitted due to Melendez-Diaz case (face it-that someone isn't going to show up for trial). w/o evidence that the SMD was calibrated, its reading is garbage. In fact, I object to its reading even being admitted into evidence via objection - lack of foundation and relevance for its admittance.