45°Good evening
The Nassau County police crime lab in Mineola.

The Nassau County police crime lab in Mineola. Credit: Nassau County Police Department

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on lab evidence will make it more costly for Nassau County to prosecute cases requiring testimony from the individual lab technician who conducted a test, a spokesman for the district attorney said Friday.

"Until today, lab reports could be used in court without calling a witness who directly examined the evidence," the office of Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said in a statement.

"Today's Supreme Court decision appears to change that, and its full implications remain unclear," the statement from Rice spokesman John Byrne said.

The main Nassau crime lab has been closed since February after problems were discovered. Certification and drug testing -- new cases as well as retests of thousands of older ones for possible errors -- have been outsourced to a Pennsylvania lab for about $100,000 a month, county officials said.

Nassau has also used a Pennsylvania lab for the past 11 years to conduct urine tests on DWI suspects. Suffolk County and New York City conduct tests in-house.

"The court's decision could prove costly by forcing the county to bring lab employees from Philadelphia to Nassau County to testify to their findings, and be subjected to cross-examination in court," the statement from Rice's office said. The statement did not put a dollar figure on the potential cost.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling Friday was in a New Mexico case, and it dealt with an unresolved issue from a high court ruling two years ago: whether the technician who conducted the test would have to testify, or if another lab worker would suffice.

The court ruled Thursday that another lab worker could not substitute for the one who administered the test, and noted that the defense attorney in the New Mexico case could have questioned the technician who performed the test about why he had been placed on unpaid leave.

Local defense lawyers hailed the ruling as an affirmation of a basic right. "We always argued that it's unfair and the defendant should be permitted to cross examine the person who did the work," criminal-defense lawyer William Petrillo, of Rockville Centre, said.

Robert Pitler, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, said the ruling was not groundbreaking and was an extension of the ruling two years ago in a similar case.

"It certainly will not change anything," Pitler, a former Manhattan prosecutor, said. "It's a straightforward application of Melendez-Diaz," a 2009 ruling on confronting lab technicians.

-- With Sid Cassese and AP

Video Player is loading.
Current Time 0:00
Duration 0:00
Loaded: 0%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 0:00
 
1x
    • Chapters
    • descriptions off, selected
    • captions off, selected
      Possible Sachem school closing ... Boarding school coming to Oakdale ... Oscars preview Credit: Newsday

      Body cam footage of Sept. shooting ... Possible Sachem school closing ... Boarding school coming to Oakdale ... Oscars preview

      Video Player is loading.
      Current Time 0:00
      Duration 0:00
      Loaded: 0%
      Stream Type LIVE
      Remaining Time 0:00
       
      1x
        • Chapters
        • descriptions off, selected
        • captions off, selected
          Possible Sachem school closing ... Boarding school coming to Oakdale ... Oscars preview Credit: Newsday

          Body cam footage of Sept. shooting ... Possible Sachem school closing ... Boarding school coming to Oakdale ... Oscars preview

          SUBSCRIBE

          Unlimited Digital AccessOnly 25¢for 6 months

          ACT NOWSALE ENDS SOON | CANCEL ANYTIME