Contrary to my expectations, Sotomayor actually was asked today
about the Confrontation Clause case I
wrote about a couple weeks ago. Amy Klobuchar, the Minnesota
senator who we can be certain never did coke with Chris Farley,
expressed her concern as a former prosecutor with
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and asked for Sotmayor's
thoughts.
Here's how she answered:
It's always difficult to deal with people's disappointments
about cases, particularly when they have personal experiences
and have their own sense of the impact of a case.
I was a former prosecutor. And it's difficult proving cases as
it is. Calling more witnesses adds some burdens to the process.
But, at the end, that case is a decided case. And so its
holding now is its holding, and that's what guides the court in
the future on similar issues to the extent there can be some.
As I said, I do recognize that there can be problems, as a
former prosecutor, but that also can't compel a result. And all
of those issues have to be looked at in the context of the
court's evaluation of the case and the judge's view of what the
law permits and doesn't permit.
Souter was in the majority in Melendez-Diaz, which was decided
5-4. It's hard to be sure based on her vague phrasing, but if
Sotomayor means to suggest that she wouldn't vote to overturn
Melendez-Diaz, that's a big deal -- the Court will revisit
the issue of the Sixth Amendment right to confront forensic
analysts next term.