Science or “Gotcha”? Why a Piece of Paper Can’t Send You to Prison

By: John Guidry

When it comes to criminal cases, lab reports are no fun.

It seems as though someone at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) is always—conveniently—finding cocaine or oxycodone every time an officer suspects it. If these lab reports are so “scientific” and “neutral,” why not just let these pieces of paper into evidence to prove a citizen is guilty of possession without having actual human beings testify?

Why not? Because this is America. Because we have a Constitution.

Did the State try to convict you with just a piece of paper?

You have the right to confront your accuser. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Constitution vs. The Lab Report

Our Supreme Court told us in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), that documents admitted without human testimony violate a defendant’s right to confront a witness when those documents are deemed to “testify” against him.

The Attempted Loophole The State of Massachusetts attempted to get around Crawford by passing a law that made laboratory reports “self-authenticating documents.” Basically, they wanted to stamp the paper “Official” and skip the part where the scientist has to show up to court.

The Smackdown: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts The United States Supreme Court had to step in. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), the Court ruled that admitting these lab reports without human testimony violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

Why Lab Reports Are Not “Neutral”

Why did the Court rule this way?

1. They are Testimonial These reports are made in anticipation of a criminal case. Whether it is possession of cocaine, trafficking in oxycodone, or a DUI blood draw, the report is created specifically to “testify” against a defendant regarding an element of the crime (what the drug is, how much it weighs, etc.).

2. Bias and Error Contrary to what the State says, lab reports are not neutral, infallible scientific evidence. They are potentially full of bias and error.

• Machines break.
• Samples get contaminated.
• Human analysts make mistakes (or lie).

A defendant’s ability to cross-examine the witness who created the document is the only way to expose these problems. Once again, the Constitution protects our citizens against lazy prosecutors who just want to mail in the verdict.

John’s 2026 Update: The Zoom Testimony Battle

Note: In 2026, the State is still trying to avoid bringing analysts to court, but now they use technology as the excuse.

1. The “Notice and Demand” Trap Florida law now has strict “Notice and Demand” rules. When the State files a “Notice of Intent to Rely on Lab Report,” you have a strict deadline (usually 10 days) to file a Demand for Testimony.

• The Danger: If your lawyer sleeps on this deadline, you waive your Melendez-Diaz rights, and the paper comes in without the witness. We file this demand immediately in every drug case.

2. The “Substitute Analyst” Trick Often, the analyst who tested your drugs years ago has quit or moved away. The State will try to put a different analyst on the stand to read the first guy’s notes.

• The Defense: We rely on Bullcoming v. New Mexico. The Supreme Court says No Surrogate Testimony. You have the right to confront the specific person who tested your sample, not their supervisor.

3. Zoom vs. Face-to-Face Since the pandemic, courts love Zoom. But the Sixth Amendment guarantees a face-to-face confrontation.

• We argue that cross-examining a chemist over a glitchy iPad connection is not constitutional confrontation. Unless the witness is truly unavailable (and not just inconvenienced), we demand they appear in the courtroom so the jury can look them in the eye.

Don’t Let a Piece of Paper Convict You

If the State is trying to use a lab report, a breath test affidavit, or a DNA report against you without putting the expert on the stand, they are violating your rights.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s demand the witness.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.