Right now, Steve Shannon is attacking Ken Cuccinelli for failing to support a bill of Shannon’s from back in 2007 that Shannon claims would have prevented the pending Charlie-Foxtrot regarding forensic techs being required to testify for drunk driving cases. The problem? His bill would have done no since thing according to “The Jaded JD”:
Most importantly, the bill is completely unrelated to the Melendez-Diaz decision. Melendez-Diaz says the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment allows a criminal defendant to confront the forensic analyst who analyzed the forensic evidence introduced at trial. Not only does Shannon’s bill not presciently recognize a right of confrontation, it restricts the ability of the defendant to object to the admissibility of the forensic certificate:
[…]
So, had Shannon’s bill become law, it wouldn’t have alleviated the current problem because it would itself be invalid under Melendez-Diaz. What’s worse, by linking the bill to Melendez-Diaz and criticizing Cuccinelli for not supporting it, Shannon appears not to realize that. That doesn’t inspire confidence in an Attorney General candidate.
You really need to read the whole thing as they say.
H/t: Bearing Drift.