. >> melendez/diaz could end up being hugely important for the practicalities of how cases unfold. the court held 5-4 when a lab examiner has done scientific analysis in a case, he produces a report that's used by the prosecution. the defense has a confrontation clause right to cross-examine the lab examiner who did the actual lab work. and historically lab work in this country has not always been done by the person who testifies. in fact, the fbi for decades had a tradition of somebody who knew something about science doing the work and then a very handsome, typically white male agent would go testify. and lots of people were convicted even though that agent didn't know anything about science and had no bachelor's degree or masters degree or anything. so one of the interesting thing about this melendez/diaz decision, thankfully, that practice has been changing in the fbi, but some of the state and local labs have not yet caught up to these more modern practices, and melendez/diaz, i think, really throws down the gauntlet to insure that there is absolute fairness in providing a mec

and melendez-diaz really throws dowfç the content -- gone lead o ensure that there is absolute fairnessroviding a mechanism for defendants to do the actual work and the science lab. >> and that was justice scalia wrote the majority in that. >> any other questions? >> with the judge sotomayor possibly becoming just as this coming term to you anticipate that advocates are going to have to change their litigation or are given strategy is? and how? >> has anyone argued before her? >> i did some years ago when for five years ago my experience was the issue is a very well prepared. she was dead on insightful questions and did so pretty forcefully. she wasn't going to allow maher questions to be updated in any way. in that sense i dearly for see a big change here is some other panel members may know areas where her ideas may be different from those justice souter. i've had people tell me that they say judge sotomayor who will have some different views on punitive damages then it justice souter has been on not really aware from a lot of different areas there will be many differences. >> i would

issue we have been talking about, the practical knowledge and how that plays into decisions is the melendez/diaz case. it was the u.s. supreme court case that this is just for my own practical work is the prosecutor and it was the contested case with the supreme court. it did not divide ideological. in fact justice fryer and justice roberts loren dissent and justice kennedy wrote, it was a 5-4 decision handed that case the issue was whether not with the confrontation clause whether or not lab workers, crime lab workers should be called then to have to testify for drugs and what the tests showed, what were in the drugs and things like that the i just wonder what your reaction was to that case, how you would have analyzed it. i zikri with the dissent in that case. i think that it opens up nine years of precedent and i think it is unreasonable for what we should expect of a criminal justice system and there has been some pretty strong language in the descent of the fear that this will create some very difficult-- difficulties for prosecutors to follow through on the evidence and get their cases in.

. >> well, in my opening, i mentioned that i think is a real possibility, that's melendez diaz on then of bringing lab technicians in to be confronted with cross-examination, and i would be very surprised if he would take the same position that he did. i can't think of any other off the top of my head. i think -- i think she might well have been in favor of allowing convicted individuals to have a right to have dna evidence retested when there's a legitimate or at least an arguable claim of innocence. justice souter did not join in that opinion and, by the way, neil read from his very compelling separate statement in that case as to why he was joining in that case, but i think judge sort mayor, had she been on the court for that case, she might well have provided a vote in favor of allowing a right to re-test dna evidence. >> i can't think of any. >> i'll defer. any other questions? yes, in the center. >> mark pack with senate republican policy committee. i heard everyone talk about how the court has become more politicized, and i'm wondering, i don't know if you want to address wheth

. >> well, in my opening, i mentioned that i think is a real possibility, that's melendez diaz on the question of bringing lab technicians in to be confronted with cross-examination, and i would be very surprised if he would take the same position that he did. i can't think of any other off the top of my head. i think -- i think she might well have been in favor of allowing convicted individuals to have a right to have dna evidence retested when there's a legitimate or at least an arguable claim of innocence. justice souter did not join in that opinion and, by the way, neil read from his very compelling separate statement in that case as to why he was joining in that case, but i think judge sort mayor, had she been on the court for that case, she might well have provided a vote in favor of allowing a right to re-test dna evidence. >> i can't think of any. >> i'll defer. any other questions? yes, in the center. >> mark pack with senate republican policy committee. i heard everyone talk about how the court has become more politicized, and i'm wondering, i don't know if you want to addre