Alex Kingsbury
Supreme Court considers whether prosecutors can hold offenders beyond their original sentences
The
The sex offender case is perhaps the more controversial of the two. It deals
with the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006, a law named after the
murdered son of America's Most Wanted host
The law allows the
government to detain indefinitely those who are deemed "sexually
dangerous." It also established the national sex offender registry and
strengthened child pornography laws. The act exceeds
One of the respondents,
The case is an interesting one in part
because of the ideological coalition that opposes the current law.
Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians alike have bristled at the
dangerous precedent they think the law represents. The high court should
overturn the "blatant government overreach,"
The high court heard a case dealing with the "confrontation
clause" in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which gives
defendants the right to challenge in court those who accuse them of
crimes. The case, Briscoe v. Virginia, is a response of sorts to a case
heard last summer, Melendez-Diaz v.
Defense attorneys
contend that the onus to provide technicians' testimony is minimal, but
prosecutors disagree, saying that technicians' time already is
overwhelmed with processing evidence and that their testimony is nearly
always routine. Backlogs in evidence-processing at crime labs can
stretch for years, a problem exacerbated by shrinking state budgets. Two
months ago, 26 attorneys general from around the country said that
requiring testimony is "proving unworkable." Justice
(C) 2010 U.S. News & World Report