tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post3253820391115042423..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: SCOTUS will revisit crime lab confrontation decisionGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-46999581135185023922009-12-22T10:08:02.362-06:002009-12-22T10:08:02.362-06:00"Beyond a reasonable doubt" ... What..."Beyond a reasonable doubt" ... What's missing here is the knowledge that a death qualified jury is positive .. sure... no flip-flopping ... no doubts, reasonable or otherwise. That is why the death penalty is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As long as you have juries who believe the lies and misconduct of the prosecution and judges who disallow defense witnesses, you will continue to convict the innocent along with the guilty.Grandmomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-66174874099972300292009-12-21T15:17:09.263-06:002009-12-21T15:17:09.263-06:00It is ridiculous to me that the States have basica...It is ridiculous to me that the States have basically concluded that they can shift the burden of proof and punted the Constitution by waiving the requirement that the State prove a case involving scientific evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.<br /><br />Incidentally, Pamela Metzger, one of my venerable law professors and the director of the Tulane Law School Criminal Clinic, has authored what I consider to be an excellent explanation of why this is such a back-a**wards idea (Vanderbilt Law Review - http://law.vanderbilt.edu/publications/vanderbilt-law-review/archive/volume-59-number-2-march-2006/download.aspx?id=2654)(Scalia though it was good enough to cite to in Melendez-Diaz.)Paul Walcuttnoreply@blogger.com