Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts — Kennedy, J., dissenting

Summary

Justice Kennedy's dissent argues that routine forensic analysts are not conventional witnesses against a defendant under the Confrontation Clause and that scientific-test certificates historically could be admitted without the analyst's live testimony. He maintains that the Court's contrary rule improperly extends the testimonial-statement framework, lacks historical and precedential support, and will disrupt criminal prosecutions without materially improving reliability or adversarial testing. The dissent would affirm the judgment below. Justice Thomas, concurring, would join because the documents at issue are formal affidavits within the core class of testimonial materials.