The US Supreme Court is set to hear another case on what appears to be the biggest hot button topic in the courthouse - confrontation.
In Williams v. Illinois, 939 NE.2d 268 (Illinois 2010), Sandy Williams was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping. At trial the state chose not to call the lab analyst who ran DNA tests on swabs in a rape kit. The state did not seek to introduce the lab report into evidence but called another lab analyst as an expert witness. The state's expert then testified as to the method by which DNA samples are tested. She was then asked to give her opinion as to whether the DNA profile from the sample "matched" the DNA profile of Mr. Williams. She claimed she reviewed the lab report in coming to her opinion.
The defense objected to the analyst's testimony on the grounds that Mr. Williams' Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was violated as he was not afforded the opportunity to cross examine the analyst who performed the actual tests upon which the lab results were based.
The judge ruled that this was not a Crawford matter and that the real issue was how much "weight" to give the evidence, not whether it should be excluded.
The Supreme Court will now decide if this scenario falls within the holding in Bullcoming. In that case Justice Sotomayor penned a concurrence that seemed to indicate she thought it was acceptable for the state to put on an expert witness (who did not conduct the test in question) to give their "independent" opinion of the results of the test.
While the rules of evidence allow experts to base their opinions on documents that would not be admissible in a court proceeding, that rule had more to do with the sources of the experts' knowledge than with giving an opinion based on someone else's (otherwise) inadmissible report.
Allow the state to get away with such a blatant end-run around Crawford would deprive defendants from questioning the analysts who conducted lab tests about the procedures used in the test. It would prevent defendants from questioning analysts about whether tests were conducted properly and in accordance with generally accepted standards.
Let's get real here. The state's "expert" did not give an "independent" opinion on the lab results. The "expert" was chosen because she would testify that the lab results indicated that Mr. Williams did what he was accused of. The "expert's" opinion was based upon a lab report that was inadmissible since the state didn't call the actual analyst to the stand. And, to top it off, claiming that the real issue is the weight to be given the expert's opinion, and not whether Mr. Williams' confrontation rights were violated, makes an absolute mockery of a person's right to confront his accusers. The assumption of the court is that the analysis was good science - whether or not the state met its burden to prove so.
Confrontation is not a right that can be "balanced" by some scale that weighs the rights of the accused against the level of inconvenience for the state.
Showing posts with label Crawford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crawford. Show all posts
Friday, July 1, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Author, author
David Bullcoming was arrested for driving while intoxicated after being involved in an automobile accident in Farmington, New Mexico. The driver of the other car noted that Mr. Bullcoming smelled of alcohol and had his wife call the police. Mr. Bullcoming left the scene but was stopped shortly thereafter. The arresting officer said he failed the roadside exercises and placed him under arrest.
After Mr. Bullcoming decided not to blow into the breath test machine, police obtained a search warrant allowing for a forcible blood draw. That blood specimen was tested by the New Mexico Department of Health's Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD). Curtis Caylor tested the sample which had an alcohol concentration of 0.21 grams per 100 milliliters, and wrote a report in which he certified that the test was conducted properly. As a result, Mr. Bullcoming was charged with aggravated DWI (BAC over 0.16).
At trial the prosecutor announced that Mr. Caylor would not be testifying because he had been placed on unpaid leave and that another analyst would testify as to the test result. Defense counsel objected on the grounds that Mr. Bullcoming's right to confront the analyst who conducted the test was being violated. The trial court didn't see it that way, overruled his objection and allowed the lab report into evidence as a business record.
On appeal the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Bullcoming's confrontation rights under Crawford weren't denied because Mr. Caylor was just the person who wrote down the test result. The Court held that the analyst called to testify was also an expert in gas chromatography and was qualified to testify as to the results of the test.
The US Supreme Court took the case to determine whether or not the state can introduce a lab report that is testimonial in nature through the testimony of an analyst who neither conducted the test nor authored the report.
The answer is no.
In making its decision, the Court looked at the contents of the report written by Mr. Caylor. The report contained more than just a test result. The report indicated the steps Mr. Caylor took in testing the sample. The report indicated the condition of the sample before the test was conducted. Since the report contained information that only the person conducting the test could know, Mr. Bullcoming had the right to confront the analyst was conducted the test. Denying Mr. Bullcoming the opportunity to cross examine Mr. Caylor deprived Mr. Bullcoming of his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.
The Court also shot down New Mexico's argument that the lab report was nontestimonial.
Lab reports are not just business records, they are testimonial documents and defendants have the right under Crawford and Melendez-Diaz to confront the authors of the lab reports. The failure of the state to make the analysts available is a violation of a criminal defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment.
After Mr. Bullcoming decided not to blow into the breath test machine, police obtained a search warrant allowing for a forcible blood draw. That blood specimen was tested by the New Mexico Department of Health's Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD). Curtis Caylor tested the sample which had an alcohol concentration of 0.21 grams per 100 milliliters, and wrote a report in which he certified that the test was conducted properly. As a result, Mr. Bullcoming was charged with aggravated DWI (BAC over 0.16).
At trial the prosecutor announced that Mr. Caylor would not be testifying because he had been placed on unpaid leave and that another analyst would testify as to the test result. Defense counsel objected on the grounds that Mr. Bullcoming's right to confront the analyst who conducted the test was being violated. The trial court didn't see it that way, overruled his objection and allowed the lab report into evidence as a business record.
On appeal the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Bullcoming's confrontation rights under Crawford weren't denied because Mr. Caylor was just the person who wrote down the test result. The Court held that the analyst called to testify was also an expert in gas chromatography and was qualified to testify as to the results of the test.
The US Supreme Court took the case to determine whether or not the state can introduce a lab report that is testimonial in nature through the testimony of an analyst who neither conducted the test nor authored the report.
The answer is no.
As a rule, if an out-of-court statement is testimonial in nature, it may not be introduced against the accused at trial unless the witness who made the statement is unavailable and the accused has had a prior opportunity to confront that witness. Because the New Mexico Supreme Court permitted the testimonial statement of one witness, i.e., Caylor, to enter into evidence through the in-court testimony of a second person, i.e., Razatos, we reverse that court’s judgment. -- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 US ___ (2011)
In making its decision, the Court looked at the contents of the report written by Mr. Caylor. The report contained more than just a test result. The report indicated the steps Mr. Caylor took in testing the sample. The report indicated the condition of the sample before the test was conducted. Since the report contained information that only the person conducting the test could know, Mr. Bullcoming had the right to confront the analyst was conducted the test. Denying Mr. Bullcoming the opportunity to cross examine Mr. Caylor deprived Mr. Bullcoming of his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.
The Court also shot down New Mexico's argument that the lab report was nontestimonial.
A document created solely for an “evidentiary purpose,” Melendez-Diaz clarified, made in aid of a police investigation, ranks as testimonial. -- Bullcoming
Lab reports are not just business records, they are testimonial documents and defendants have the right under Crawford and Melendez-Diaz to confront the authors of the lab reports. The failure of the state to make the analysts available is a violation of a criminal defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)