Archive for June, 2011

6th Amendment Confrontation Clause Victory in U.S. Supreme Court

When a prosecutor wants to present a toxicology or forensic report, they must subpoena the person who actually did the work that produced the report.  Except in DUI cases. In DUI cases, prosecutors try to admit the report without testimony or allow the analysts supervisor to testify about the analysts work.  DUI defense attorneys challenged this approach arguing that admitting the test without the actual testimony of the person who prepared the results violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause.  This issue found its way to consideration before the United States Supreme Court in Bullcoming v. New Mexico,131 S.Ct. 587 (2010).

The Facts of the Case

Following his conviction for felony aggravated DUI, Donald Bullcoming was sentenced to two years in prison.  The State won conviction when the Trial Court allowed the State to introduce a blood alcohol draw that was ordered after Bullcoming refused a breath test.  The defense argued that the laboratory report of his blood draw results was testimonial evidence subject to the Confrontation Clause.

The Lower Court Rulings

The  Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and upheld the trial court’s ruling that since the forensic report was a business record, it presented no issue under the Confrontation Clause because the report was non- testimonial.  Bullcoming appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court.  While the case was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 2009 decision in Melendez-Diaz v.Massachusetts, clarifying that forensic laboratory reports are testimonial and therefore the Sixth Amendment does not permit the prosecution to prove its case via ex parte out-of-court affidavits.  Bullcoming wins right? Wrong!  In applying the Melendez-Diaz ruling, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the blood alcohol report was testimonial evidence, but it was admissible even though the forensic analyst who performed the test did not testify.

Supreme Court Decision

In Bullcoming, the Court reaffirmed (and arguably extended) its decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts that a forensic report is testimonial evidence that cannot be introduced without the live testimony of a witness who can attest to the accuracy of its contents. The twist in Bullcoming was that while the forensic analyst who prepared the report at issue — in this case, a report on blood-alcohol content — was unable to testify another analyst from the same lab testified as to how such reports are traditionally made. This was not enough to overcome the Confrontation Clause objection, the Court concluded, as it held the report was inadmissible.

Charles M. Rowland II is a practicing DUI attorney in Dayton, Ohio.  He limits his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in and around the Miami Valley.  Visit www.OhioDUIBlog.com or www.DaytonDUI.com to learn more about his practice, or call him at (937) 318-1384.

Related articles

• Intoxilyzer 8000 Evidence Thrown Out in Circleville, Ohio (daytondui.com)
• SCOTUS: Confrontation Clause Bars Forensic Lab Certifications (mpdtrainer.wordpress.com)
• Defending the Publication of DUI Checkpoint Locations (daytondui.com)
• Vandalia Municipal Court (daytondui.com)
• The Role of the Prosecutor (daytondui.com)
• Fighting for Fairness in DUI Law (daytondui.com)
• Arrested for DUI in Dayton, Ohio? (daytondui.com)