By George P. Hassett

Two Somerville brothers had their drug dealing convictions overturned on appeal Tuesday on the grounds that their constitutional rights were violated when they did not have a chance to cross examine chemists who tested the drugs seized at their home.

Ronald Mendes and Raymond B. Mendes were arrested Oct. 21, 2006 in their second floor apartment at 98 Albion St. In their bedrooms police found what they believed to be cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy and large amounts of cash. While the search warrant was being executed, Somerville Police Detective James Hyde monitored the Mendes’ cell phones  and allegedly received 10 to 12 requests for drugs from prospective customers.

At their trial both brothers said they were drug users not drug dealers and referred to the substances seized as cocaine, marijuana and ecstasy.

In the 2-1 ruling, however, the state’s Appeals Court ruled the certificates of drug analysis submitted at trial were insufficient to prove the substances seized from the apartment were actually cocaine, marijuana and ecstasy.

The decision overturns the convictions against the brothers for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and drug violation in a school or park zone.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that Massachusetts routinely violated the rights of defendants in drug trials by not having a chemist testify in person that a seized substance was in fact an illegal drug.

“We conclude that the admission of certificates of drug analysis in violation of the defendants’ rights of confrontation requires that their convictions be reversed,” wrote Associate Justice Cynthia J. Cohen, who wrote for the majority.

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Janis M. Berry wrote, “In my judgment, a defendant cannot have it both ways…take the stand at trial and testify  that the controlled substances were particular drugs, and then shift stance to contend on appeal that a conviction was fraught with error because certificates of drug analysis were introduced.”