<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Criminal Defense Lawyer | Personal Injury Attorney | DC &amp; MD | Steven D. Kupferberg</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kupferberglaw.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kupferberglaw.com</link>
	<description>Criminal Defense Lawyers &#124; Personal Injury Attorneys</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:58:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Supreme Court Holds Prosecutors to Task by Supreme Court: Lab Analysts Must Appear in Criminal Trials &#124; Joshua D. Borean &#124; Attorney</title>
		<link>http://kupferberglaw.com/2011/08/supreme-court-holds-prosecutors-to-task/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Supreme Court: Lab Analysts Must Appear in Criminal Trials &#124; Joshua D. Borean &#124; Attorney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:58:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kupferberglaw.com/?p=1383#comment-19</guid>
		<description>[...] This recent decision clearly demonstrates why effective cross examination is not available when the lab analyst who is called to testify knows nothing other than what is contained in the report. Why was the original technician on unpaid leave? Did his leave have anything to do with how he conducted tests? Beyond the questions of integrity and honesty, a defendant also must be able to question the procedure and standards applied by the technician. A colleague who simply reads the results can only testify to what should have been done, and cannot testify as to what was actually done.  via Kupferberglaw.com [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This recent decision clearly demonstrates why effective cross examination is not available when the lab analyst who is called to testify knows nothing other than what is contained in the report. Why was the original technician on unpaid leave? Did his leave have anything to do with how he conducted tests? Beyond the questions of integrity and honesty, a defendant also must be able to question the procedure and standards applied by the technician. A colleague who simply reads the results can only testify to what should have been done, and cannot testify as to what was actually done.  via Kupferberglaw.com [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

