LEGAL

RESEARCH

Bullcoming v. New Mexico

Facts

The defendant was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. At his trial, the trial court permitted the government to admit as evidence a forensic laboratory report which indicated the defendantโ€™s intoxication. The prosecution did not call the analyst that created and signed the report, but rather, brought forward another analyst that was familiar with the laboratoryโ€™s procedures.

Issue

Whether the Sixth Amendmentโ€™s Confrontation Clause requires the government to produce the testimony of the analyst that obtained the results found in the report?

Held

Yes. Neither the report nor a knowledgeable surrogate is a satisfactory substitute for effective cross-examination guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

Discussion

The Court has consistently held โ€œ[A]s 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.โ€ A statement is โ€œtestimonial in natureโ€ if its primary purpose is to prove โ€œpast events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.โ€ This rule is designed to protect the defendantโ€™s Sixth Amendmentโ€™s Confrontation Clause right to challenge adversarial testimonial evidence. The Court refused to create a โ€œforensic evidenceโ€ exception to this rule.

Citation

564 U.S. 647, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011)

Send a message!

Subscribe to Update