Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Following the flavor and logic of the recent Bullcoming case, the lab technician/analyst should be called by the prosecution to testify unless truly �unavailable.� There is not a set standard of exactly what has to be done in any case, except to convince a jury of course (or Judge in a bench trial) � or if the evidence is so lacking, then a defense motion to dismiss may be granted based on lack of sufficient evidence to (reasonably) convict.

The officer�s opinon, if he certified as a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE), may �mean� something � although in my experience that is more used for identifying the effects in a human of different drugs not the appearance/identity of a substance. The substance should clearly be tested by a licensed lab; however, it seems a moot point because if the prosecution had the substance, they would test it � are there some facts missing? Hope this helps. Good luck!

If interested you can read that opinion at

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/9-10876.ZO.html

(or Google the phrase �Bullcoming Supreme Court�)