ABSTRACT
This chapter begins with a brief discussion of Melendez-Diaz and explores the main legislative and administrative responses designed to ameliorate the impact of that case on criminal prosecutions. Melendez-Diaz prompted renewed interest in remote testimony as a method to satisfy the confrontation clause. This procedure would allow analysts to testify from their labs or other close-by locations rather than travelling to court to do so. With pressure mounting to deal with testing backlogs, interest has grown in the use of private labs and hospitals to perform forensic testing. Another response to Melendez-Diaz has been legislation imposing fees on defendants when forensic analysts testify at trial. The new forensic fee statutes are clearly distinguishable from general cost recoupment statutes and arguments can be made both ways about their constitutionality. Some prosecutors are responding by re-evaluating the routine use of forensic evidence, opting to use it only where absolutely necessary to secure a conviction.
