Evidence on Cell Phone Location Admissible

A Federal Court of Appeals in Iowa has ruled that testimony of a Defendant's location based upon his cell phone was admissible. This opinion is relevant and important to Alabama as the Court cited similar opinions from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in which Alabama is included.

The court allowed testimony from the State's expert witness, an engineer, as to the location of the Defendant's cell phone. A radio frequency expert testified based upon the cell phone company's records that showed the vectors and the cell phone towers that were involved for every call or text message received by the Defendant's cell phone. The engineer explained he could map out the Defendant's approximate location whenever there was an incoming and outgoing transmission, which placed the Defendant in the area of the crime (murder) during relevant time periods.

The Defendant's attorney tried to exclude the testimony and claimed lack of proper foundation. The Court disagreed, allowed the testimony, and the Defendant was convicted.

In affirming the conviction, the Court stated that the records were regular business records of the company and were automatically stored on the company server when a call is created. The engineer demonstrated personal knowledge of the call detail records and how they were automatically generated - and how this procedure tied the Defendant to the pertinent facts of the crime charged.

ATTORNEY NOTE: The testimony would be admissible in Alabama state and federal courts if the prosecution offers expert testimony and lays the proper foundation.

U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Forensic Lab Reports not Admissible without the Lab Technician's Testimony

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

LUIS E. MELENDEZ-DIAZ, PETITIONER v. MASSACHUSETTS

At a state-court drug trial, the prosecution introduced certificates of state laboratory analysts stating that material seized by police and connected to petitioner was cocaine of a certain quantity. As required by state law, the certificates were sworn to before a notary public and were submitted as valid evidence of what they asserted. The Defendant objected, asserting that under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36, it required the analysts to testify in person. The trial court disagreed, the certificates were admitted, and the Defendant was convicted. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed, rejecting Defendant's claim that the certificates' admission violated his Sixth Amendment rights.

Held: The admission of the certificates violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.

(a) Under Crawford, a witness's testimony against a defendant is inadmissible unless the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable, the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. The certificates here are affidavits, which fall within the "core class of testimonial statements" covered by the Confrontation Clause. They asserted that the substance found in Defendant's possession was, as the prosecution claimed, cocaine of a certain weight-the precise testimony the analysts would be expected to provide if called at trial. Not only were the certificates made, as Crawford required for testimonial statements, "under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial," but under the relevant Massachusetts law their sole purpose was to provide genuine evidence of the substance's composition, quality, and net weight. The Defendant was entitled to "be confronted with" the persons giving this testimony at trial. ATTORNEY NOTE: The same state statute was used in drug trials in Alabama. This Supreme Court case now requires all states to provide the actual analyst to testify in court, but only if the Defendant's attorney requests it.