Witness Testifies in McNeely Killing, Alexandria Times, January 20, 2012.

Link to the Washingtonian’s best criminal defense lawyers for 2011-2012

Ryan Campbell named “Rising Star” by Virginia Super Lawyers for third straight year.

View Ryan Campbell’s Super Lawyer Profile

Joe King and Chris Leibig teach, on behalf of the Alexandria Bar Association, DUI and Traffic continuing legal education seminar to other bar members.  March 31, 2011.

See Poster

On September 16, 2010, the Virginia Supreme Court found the state’s former statutory scheme governing the introduction of lab reports into evidence to be unconstitutional.  Appellant Briscoe’s conviction, however, was upheld on harmless error grounds.  The Virginia Supreme Court’s opinion in Cypress/Briscoe v. Virginia, 280 Va. 205 (2010) can be found at http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1070815.pdf .

Megan Thomas wins reversal in the Virginia Court of Appeals in Frazier v. Commonwealth. The Commonwealth’s request for a rehearing en banc was denied.

View Article

Joseph King selected to The American Trial Lawyers Association’s “Top 100 Trial Lawyers” in Virginia.

View Article

On January 11, 2010, Mr. King appeared in the U.S. Supreme Court as accompanying counsel to Professor Richard Friedman of the University of Michigan Law School, a Confrontation Clause scholar, in Briscoe v. Virginia, 559 U.S. (2010). The question presented in Briscoe was whether the government, if it “allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of a forensic laboratory analysis” without the analyst’s live testimony, may “avoid violating the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by providing that the accused has a right to call the analyst as his own witness.”

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Briscoe on June 29, 2009, four days after deciding the major Confrontation Clause case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (June 25, 2009) (View PDF), which held laboratory certificates of analysis are testimonial hearsay and the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires the government to make analysts who prepare such certificates available to the defense for cross-examination. On August 19, 2009, the Virginia General Assembly met in special session to amend the statutes challenged in Briscoe and to bring those laws into compliance with Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. On August 22, Governor Kaine signed new legislation requiring the prosecution, rather than the defense, to present the live testimony of lab technicians in the prosecution’s case-in-chief if so demanded by the defendant.

It would appear the Virginia General Assembly made the correct decision to amend the laws challenged in Briscoe. On January 25, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision against petitioners Briscoe and Cypress and remanded the case in light of Melendez Diaz v. Massachusetts. In 2008, Mr. King argued Briscoe v. Commonwealth before the Virginia Supreme Court (decided in Magruder v. Virginia, 657 S.E.2d 113, 275 Va. 283 (Va. 2008)), which 4-3 opinion in favor of the Commonwealth precipitated Briscoe’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On September 16, 2010, the Virginia Supreme Court found the laws challenged in Briscoe v. Virginia to be unconstitutional in its opinion Cypress/Briscoe v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 305 (2010), however, Briscoe’s convictions were upheld on harmless error grounds.  The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1070815.pdf

Briefs and materials related to Briscoe v. Virginia and the Confrontation Clause are available on Professor Friedman’s Confrontation Blog.

“Supreme Court revisits ruling on challenges to forensic reports,” The Washington Post.

View Article

“With New Member, Supreme Court Takes New Look at Crime Lab Ruling,” The New York Times.

View Article