<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on:  Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts = Crawford II: The Final Confrontation </title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/06/melendez-diaz-v-massachusetts-is-crawford-ii-the-final-confrontation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/06/melendez-diaz-v-massachusetts-is-crawford-ii-the-final-confrontation/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 01:21:13 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: &#187; Mass Appeal! &#124; Matt Cameron&#8217;s Appellate Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/06/melendez-diaz-v-massachusetts-is-crawford-ii-the-final-confrontation/comment-page-1/#comment-4644</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Mass Appeal! &#124; Matt Cameron&#8217;s Appellate Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:34:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=899#comment-4644</guid>
		<description>[...] last term. As I&#8217;ve already discussed (more than you ever really need to know here and here) it was an elegant and, at base, nearly inarguable Scalia decision which held that introducing [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] last term. As I&#8217;ve already discussed (more than you ever really need to know here and here) it was an elegant and, at base, nearly inarguable Scalia decision which held that introducing [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael DuPont (paralegal)</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/06/melendez-diaz-v-massachusetts-is-crawford-ii-the-final-confrontation/comment-page-1/#comment-1241</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael DuPont (paralegal)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=899#comment-1241</guid>
		<description>Does anyone have suggestions as to the means for retroactive application (e.g. ineffective assistance of former lawyer who failed to make specific contemPoraneous objection to preserve Crawford issue) to thousands of wrongful convictions in metro Boston area ? If so, please be good enough to share your opinions here or at my website paralegalwerewolf.com 

In relation thereto, have you considered the potential impact in your, or other, state(s) that utilize similar drug analysis certificates or have DNA or other scientific testing results allowed into evidence without live testimony from the expert who conducted the actual test ? If so, I suggest you join hundreds of Massachusetts lawyers who are brainstorming this decision not only for their own clients cases but for others nationwide.

The prospective application of Melendez-Diaz has multi-million (or billion) dollar impact to fund salaries for new government drug analysis employees, but it pales in the face of any state decision (possibly under the stronger protections from the face to face confrontation clause of Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights)granting retroactive application of Melendez-Diaz which would open the doors of Walpole State Prison, its&#039; supermax Control Unit, other prisons and county jails releasing one-third to one-half of the prisoners saving hundreds of millions in state costs while threatening billion dollar crime waves. 

Unless a new emergency state budget adds a billion dollars to smooth out this mountainous bump in criminal injustice system highway, Melendez-Diaz is definitely a landmark decision shaking the very core of the state criminal trial system, further backlogging ten to twelve month drug analysis delays and most likely resulting in prosecutors deciding not to indict or prosecute any marijuanna or other lesser drug offenses in the Commonwealth of Taxachusetts</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does anyone have suggestions as to the means for retroactive application (e.g. ineffective assistance of former lawyer who failed to make specific contemPoraneous objection to preserve Crawford issue) to thousands of wrongful convictions in metro Boston area ? If so, please be good enough to share your opinions here or at my website paralegalwerewolf.com </p>
<p>In relation thereto, have you considered the potential impact in your, or other, state(s) that utilize similar drug analysis certificates or have DNA or other scientific testing results allowed into evidence without live testimony from the expert who conducted the actual test ? If so, I suggest you join hundreds of Massachusetts lawyers who are brainstorming this decision not only for their own clients cases but for others nationwide.</p>
<p>The prospective application of Melendez-Diaz has multi-million (or billion) dollar impact to fund salaries for new government drug analysis employees, but it pales in the face of any state decision (possibly under the stronger protections from the face to face confrontation clause of Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights)granting retroactive application of Melendez-Diaz which would open the doors of Walpole State Prison, its&#8217; supermax Control Unit, other prisons and county jails releasing one-third to one-half of the prisoners saving hundreds of millions in state costs while threatening billion dollar crime waves. </p>
<p>Unless a new emergency state budget adds a billion dollars to smooth out this mountainous bump in criminal injustice system highway, Melendez-Diaz is definitely a landmark decision shaking the very core of the state criminal trial system, further backlogging ten to twelve month drug analysis delays and most likely resulting in prosecutors deciding not to indict or prosecute any marijuanna or other lesser drug offenses in the Commonwealth of Taxachusetts</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Thacker</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/06/melendez-diaz-v-massachusetts-is-crawford-ii-the-final-confrontation/comment-page-1/#comment-1083</link>
		<dc:creator>John Thacker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:43:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=899#comment-1083</guid>
		<description>And of course, how the eventual (I&#039;m assuming) Justice Sotomayor comes down here is really important.  The entire &lt;em&gt;Apprendi&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Ring&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Crawford&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Booker&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Arizona v. Gant&lt;/em&gt;, etc. line of cases basically are the same way, and with the same legalist v. pragmatist essential split.  &lt;em&gt;Kyllo vs. US&lt;/em&gt; practically so, with Stevens and Breyer switched.

I don&#039;t think it&#039;s exaggerating to say that these cases are the most significant line of cases that could (possibly) switch with Sotomayor replacing Souter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And of course, how the eventual (I&#8217;m assuming) Justice Sotomayor comes down here is really important.  The entire <em>Apprendi</em>, <em>Ring</em>, <em>Crawford</em>, <em>Booker</em>, <em>Arizona v. Gant</em>, etc. line of cases basically are the same way, and with the same legalist v. pragmatist essential split.  <em>Kyllo vs. US</em> practically so, with Stevens and Breyer switched.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s exaggerating to say that these cases are the most significant line of cases that could (possibly) switch with Sotomayor replacing Souter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
