Six months after revealing its decision of not allowing crime lab reports to be used as evidence to indict criminal defendants in a trial, unless the analyst who produced the observations testifies in court, the Supreme Court and its magistrates are reviewing the case and hearing arguments about how the new system is working and whether it is achieving its desired function or not.

The US Supreme Court has had a little shake up since the 5-to-4 decision in June with regards to the Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts case. In the decision, it was said that the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause “does not allow the mere presentation of a lab report” to prove the existence of drugs that will be a basis for the defendant’s indictment.

For example, the clause would not allow a lab report to determine whether the white substance found in the defendant’s possession are drugs unless the analyst testifies and gives full explanation of his findings.

Justice Antonio Scalia wrote the majority opinion on the case and said that there was only one reason for the Supreme Court to take a look at the case again, and that is to just upset the Supreme Court’s earlier decision.

Justice David H. Souter, who retired in June 2009, was part of the majority who made the decision last June. He was succeeded by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, prompting speculations of a reversal for the Melendez-Diaz issue.

So far, however, Justice Sotomayor has stirred clear of anything dramatic and instead focused on things they can do to put the earlier decision into effect. She stated that she has high trust in the trial process and observed that the objection is largely because prosecutors believe that a live testimony and explanation from forensic analysts is more compelling than a written document.

Though most drug cases end up in plea bargains and do not really require testimonies from its analysts, defendants mostly come up with good reasons that will compel analysts to validate the results of their tests. The Melendez-Diaz case also raised the question on whether the Supreme Court acted too fast in coming up with the decision and whether they had failed to look at all the angles of the said case.