Our county is a small and poor county. I've got a defense attorney who enjoys filing frivlous motions. His latest one is seeking the county to begin paying for independent drug analysis for indigents. We have a massive drug problem out here. We send all samples to the state lab, but apparently that is not good enough. He is relying on 4 cases that are about 30 years old. The only argument I have is that the statutory analysis was incorrectly done and that this is a bad case of judicial activism. Basically the judges admitted that the statute at issue, its commentary and the legislature did not include independent drug analysis, but they all meant to do so. Please help me if you've had anything like this in your county. The hearing is in the morning and I just got notice of what the defense intends to argue tomorrow. I've done prelim research, but I would love some input. The cases he's relying on are Terrell, 521 S.W.2d 618; Detmering, 481 S.W.2d 863; Quinones, 592 S.W.2d 933; McBride, 838 S.W.2d 248.
The defendant must still show the identity of the substance is going to be a significant factor at trial. Relatively few "affluent" defendants independently analyze contraband and I am not aware of significant problems with DPS Crime Lab analysis. Thus, an independent expert is not a "basic tool" integral to the building of an effective defense. Misidentification is rarely an effective defense. But, McBride is the law. The court should have conducted a more thorough analysis, as in the cases cited in McLeod, 581 So.2d at 1151 (Ala.Crim.App.).
