The Supreme Court recently decided the case of Melendez-Diaz vs. Massachusetts that lab technicians and forensics experts must appear in court to testify regarding lab results if those results are to be admitted. Gov. Tim Kane of Virginia is concerned this decision will create backups for DUI cases if experts are not readily available to appear in court. 

The legislation was introduced to the Virginia legislature in response to backups that occurred when forensic scientists were not available to immediately appear in court. In response, Kane hopes to set forth an exact procedure to assure both prosecutors and defense attorneys are prepared prior to the case going to trial. 

The bill would require prosecutors to notify the defense of their intent to introduce forensic evidence in court. With DUI cases, this evidence is typically the breath test results. They would introduce proof the machine was working. In some cases, blood or urine tests would also be introduced.

The defense would then need to object to the admission of this evidence without testimony from the forensic scientist. If the defense does not object within a certain period of time, the right to testimony from a scientist would be waived.

Original opponents to the Supreme Court's stance on testimony from forensic scientists was the substantial strain this would place on local crime labs. Many labs are understaffed with scientists already overworked. Appearing in court for each case they are related to would demand even more time from each scientist.

This bill appears to be a good solution at first blush. It allows both sides to adequately prepare for the case in court. Additionally, it puts the burden on the defense if they wish to question the forensic testimony.