Sixth Amendment

The Supreme Court announced Thursday a potentially significant change in how crime lab reports are used in trials, ruling that a defendant has the right to cross-examine in front of the jury the experts who prepared these reports. Crime labs have been subjected to criticism in the last decade, much of it because of DNA evidence that has shown at least 240 prisoners were in fact not guilty.

The Supreme Court announced Thursday a potentially significant change in how crime lab reports are used in trials, ruling that a defendant has the right to cross-examine in front of the jury the experts who prepared these reports. Crime labs have been subjected to criticism in the last decade, much of it because of DNA evidence that has shown at least 240 prisoners were in fact not guilty.

U.S. Attorney Bonner goes his boss, Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III, one better in suggesting only those who can afford it are entitled to protection of the Sixth Amendment and a litmus test for the lawyers of those who can't. LOUIS M. ST. MARTIN Pomona

In three current high-profile criminal cases, federal prosecutors have asked that the identities of Israeli government witnesses be withheld from defendants and their attorneys -- a move some legal scholars see as a highly unusual end run around the 6th Amendment. Defense attorneys in all three cases have argued, with mixed results, that allowing U.S.

Victims in child abuse cases may testify without actually appearing in court and directly confronting those they accuse, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, upholding laws in at least 25 states--including California--designed to protect child witnesses from trauma.

Robert W. Stewart quotes Dannemeyer's press secretary, Paul Mero, as saying, "To us, it's those who believe in a God against those who don't." This echoes what Dannemeyer wrote in a Times Op-Ed piece on Nov. 8, 1981: "The First Amendment provides freedom for religion. The modern interpretation for absolute freedom from religion is erroneous and logically impossible." And what the head of his party, then-Vice President George Bush, told a Chicago airport press conference in August, 1987: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots.

The Supreme Court, limiting the rights of defendants to contest the fairness of their juries, ruled Monday that prosecutors may continue to remove potential jurors because of their profession, religion, gender or ethnic background. On a 5-4 vote, the court said that a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial does not flatly prohibit a prosecutor from excluding members of any specific group from the jury. One exception to this rule still stands.

Re Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi on decriminalizing narcotics: "Does not the First Amendment allow ads and marketing?" he asks. No, Mr. Capizzi, it does not. It allows freedom to speak against the government in word or print. Absence of that right allows, as in Russia under communism, dissidents to be jailed, exiled to Siberia, or to vanish forever. Also, Mr. Capizzi, it is not the Miranda rule that gives suspects the right to legal counsel, it is the Sixth Amendment, which orders a defense counsel.

In three current high-profile criminal cases, federal prosecutors have asked that the identities of Israeli government witnesses be withheld from defendants and their attorneys -- a move some legal scholars see as a highly unusual end run around the 6th Amendment. Defense attorneys in all three cases have argued, with mixed results, that allowing U.S.

Police officers may ask a drunk-driving suspect to answer routine questions and videotape his slurred responses without warning him of his constitutional right to remain silent, the Supreme Court said Monday. The 8-1 decision creates an exception to the Miranda doctrine for "routine booking questions" at a police station. The ruling also upholds the growing use by the police of videotape, which can be a powerful weapon for prosecutors.

John Allen Muhammad's request that he be allowed to serve as his own attorney was an uncommon legal move. But under the 6th Amendment, criminal defendants have the right to represent themselves -- a right solidified by a 1975 Supreme Court ruling that set a high bar for judges to turn down such requests.

Perhaps more than any other case in American history, the O.J. Simpson murder trial is forcing constant examination of the tension between protecting a free press and guaranteeing a fair trial. This has been especially evident in developments of the past week. Judge Lance A. Ito suspended jury selection for two days to focus on whether a new book about Nicole Brown Simpson compromises O.J. Simpson's right to a fair trial.

Re Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi on decriminalizing narcotics: "Does not the First Amendment allow ads and marketing?" he asks. No, Mr. Capizzi, it does not. It allows freedom to speak against the government in word or print. Absence of that right allows, as in Russia under communism, dissidents to be jailed, exiled to Siberia, or to vanish forever. Also, Mr. Capizzi, it is not the Miranda rule that gives suspects the right to legal counsel, it is the Sixth Amendment, which orders a defense counsel.

New Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may be showing the first signs of being a conservative hard-liner ready to sharply restrict the protections of the Constitution. In a little noticed concurring opinion filed this week, Thomas joined the Bush Administration and Justice Antonin Scalia in urging a new approach to limiting a defendant's ability to confront his accusers in court, a traditional right set forth in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court on Thursday reaffirmed the power of states to restrict what criminal defense lawyers may say about their clients and the charges they face. By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that a lawyer's normal free speech rights are outweighed by the danger of a "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" to a fair trial.

The Supreme Court, in its first ruling upholding so-called rape-shield laws, said Monday that a rape suspect does not have an absolute constitutional right to tell a jury about an earlier sexual relationship with his accuser. In the 1970s, nearly every state enacted laws to forbid court testimony that exposed the private life of a rape victim. Women's rights advocates had complained that rape suspects tried to save themselves by ruining the reputations of their victims.

New Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may be showing the first signs of being a conservative hard-liner ready to sharply restrict the protections of the Constitution. In a little noticed concurring opinion filed this week, Thomas joined the Bush Administration and Justice Antonin Scalia in urging a new approach to limiting a defendant's ability to confront his accusers in court, a traditional right set forth in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in its first ruling upholding so-called rape-shield laws, said Monday that a rape suspect does not have an absolute constitutional right to tell a jury about an earlier sexual relationship with his accuser. In the 1970s, nearly every state enacted laws to forbid court testimony that exposed the private life of a rape victim. Women's rights advocates had complained that rape suspects tried to save themselves by ruining the reputations of their victims.

Robert W. Stewart quotes Dannemeyer's press secretary, Paul Mero, as saying, "To us, it's those who believe in a God against those who don't." This echoes what Dannemeyer wrote in a Times Op-Ed piece on Nov. 8, 1981: "The First Amendment provides freedom for religion. The modern interpretation for absolute freedom from religion is erroneous and logically impossible." And what the head of his party, then-Vice President George Bush, told a Chicago airport press conference in August, 1987: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots.

Victims in child abuse cases may testify without actually appearing in court and directly confronting those they accuse, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, upholding laws in at least 25 states--including California--designed to protect child witnesses from trauma.