ZDC Accepting New Criminal Defense Clients

Zimmmer, Duncan and Cole is always accepting new criminal defense clients. We have a rich history of criminal defense, and have extensive experience in the area.

It Couldn't Happen Here...Right?

Man held in jail without hearing. No probable cause. Right to be presented before a magistrate.

New US Supreme Court Ruling on Admissible Evidence

In Menandes Diaz v. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court recently decided that the United States Constitution required state prosecutors who want to offer crime lab reports as evidence at trial, to have the particular expert testify in person at the trial and be subject to cross-examination by the Defendant’s Lawyer.  Interestingly, the Supreme Court indicated that defense lawyers must assert the right to confront and cross-examine the expert witness before the State has to produce the witness to testify at trial.

What this means in South Dakota is that any prosecution expert trial witness who does a lab report, chemical analysis, finger prints analysis, blood spatter patterns analysis, blood chemistry analysis, gun, bullet, and really any other form of physical evidence subject to analysis by a laboratory must be supported by a witness and available for cross-examination.  This is typically how it is done anyway at trial, but there may be certain lab reports that are generally relied upon as part of other testimony.

There is no question that this decision will give defense lawyers another avenue to protect their client’s rights by cross-examining certain witnesses that might not otherwise have had to testify.  Defense Lawyers need to make sure they assert these rights.

US Supreme Court Ruling on Student Rights

The United States Supreme Court recently decided that public school officials are now limited in their ability to search students for drugs or other harmful items.  In Safford United School District v. Redding, the Supreme Court ruled that school official searches of the inter-clothing and undergarments of a student, in other words a strip search, will be pretty much prohibited from here on out under the United States Constitution.

The Court did not change the right of public school officials to search students’ back packs, notebooks, and other belongings along with their outer-clothing and pockets based upon reasonable suspicion.

This is a particularly difficult problem for school officials and for students and their parents.  It is also a good example of how difficult these cases are.  Certainly, the school officials want to provide a safe school environment for their students, faculty, and staff.  On the other hand, the United States Constitution protects all people, including students, from unreasonable searches and seizures.  This case points out the difficult issues that Courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys face on these issues. 

The bottom line here is that students do enjoy some Constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and they are not susceptible to the whims of school administrators.  Student searches by school officials require, at a minimum, at least reasonable suspicion of illegal activity before any search can be conducted.