Latest Case: Hairston v. Delaware (Constitutional Law)

Some Observations on Calls for Senate Reform: Part One of a Two-Part Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

In this first of a series of columns, Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar offers four observations about recent calls for reform of the filibuster device in the U.S. Senate. Dean Amar suggests looking at state experiences with supermajority rules, as well as the Senate’s own recent past, and he considers why senators might be reluctant to eliminate the filibuster. He concludes with a comment on President Joe Biden’s suggestion that the Senate return to the “talking filibuster” and praises a suggestion by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) that the cloture requirement (currently at 60 votes) could be lowered gradually, the longer a measure under consideration is debated.

Read More

Hairston v. Delaware

Docket: 53, 2020

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Traynor

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1994, the Delaware General Assembly enacted a statute, applicable to both criminal and civil proceedings, that eased the evidentiary burden on the proponent of controlled-substance-testing evidence. The statute, "Subchapter III," allowed for the admission of, and a favorable presumption relating to, written reports from a forensic toxicologist or forensic chemist, without the necessity of their appearance in court, so long as the report complied with certain requirements. After Stephen Hairston was indicted on several criminal offenses, including serious drug offenses, he served a written demand on the State, which, by the unambiguous terms of the statute, required the presence at trial of, among other individuals, the officer who seized and packaged the substances that formed the basis of Hairston’s drug offenses. Upon the State’s pretrial motion in limine, however, the Superior Court, believing that the seizing and packaging officer was unavailable, relieved the State of its obligation to produce him and permitted another officer who was present at the scene of Hairston’s apprehension to appear in the seizing and packaging officer’s stead. The Superior Court’s ruling, according to Hairston, erroneously relieved the State of a mandatory statutory duty and violated Hairston’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Delaware Supreme Court held the Superior Court’s interpretation of the statute in question was erroneous as a matter of law and that, absent the appearance of the witness identified in Hairston’s demand, it was error for the court to admit the forensic chemist’s report and testimony. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.