Ohio seems to “get it”

As opposed to Wisconsin, Ohio seems to under­stand that the defen­dant has the right to cross-examine that ACTUAL ana­lyst who per­formed the work, not just some­one who “reads the report.” Maybe Melendez-Diaz is hav­ing an effect.

Original arti­cle posted here:

CLEVELAND — Some pros­e­cu­tors fear crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tions could be delayed as the Ohio Supreme Court reviews whether crime-laboratory experts may tes­tify about their col­leagues’ work.
Advertisement

A U.S. Supreme Court rul­ing directed the Ohio Supreme Court to take another look at a Marion County mur­der case in which a sub­sti­tute ana­lyst tes­ti­fied about DNA tests con­ducted by an ana­lyst on mater­nity leave at the time of the trial.

Lee Crager, now 38, was con­victed of aggra­vated mur­der and aggra­vated bur­glary in the 2004 beat­ing death of a 70-year-old stroke vic­tim, Esta Boyd, in the bed­room of her Marion home in north-central Ohio.

He was sen­tenced to 30 years to life in prison and is being held at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville.

The pros­e­cu­tor pre­sented evi­dence show­ing Crager’s clothes had the victim’s DNA on them. In addi­tion, a beer can with his fin­ger­print was found in the trash and his palm prints were found on the victim’s bed­room mirror.

The Ohio Supreme Court had ruled in 2007 that allow­ing an expert to tes­tify about another’s lab results did not vio­late the defendant’s rights to con­front evi­dence in court.

Kevin Collins, Crager’s attor­ney, said Friday that the issue would be resolved if Crager received a new trial and the orig­i­nal lab­o­ra­tory ana­lyst testified.