Donald Bullcoming v. New Mexico (SCOTUS 2011)

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause forbids the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the reported test; the accused is entitled to confront the certifying analyst himself unless that analyst is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him. Applying Crawford and Melendez-Diaz, the Court reasoned that the certifying analyst's representations about sample integrity, protocol adherence, and test validity concern past human actions meet for cross-examination, that apparent reliability cannot excuse confrontation, and that the unsworn New Mexico blood-alcohol report was in all material respects as testimonial as the notarized certificates in Melendez-Diaz. Because the State substituted analyst Razatos, who had no role in or knowledge of the test, without ever asserting certifying analyst Caylor's unavailability, the Court reversed the New Mexico Supreme Court and remanded, reserving any harmless-error inquiry. Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer and Alito, dissented in favor of permitting knowledgeable surrogate testimony, while Justice Sotomayor concurred in part to emphasize the limited reach of the holding.

Holding

Whether the Confrontation Clause permits introduction of a testimonial forensic laboratory certification through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test.. No. Surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement; the accused's right is to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.

Whether the Confrontation Clause is satisfied when the certifying analyst acted as a 'mere scrivener' who simply transcribed a machine-generated result.. No. Caylor's certification reported more than a machine-generated number: he certified receipt of the sample intact with seal unbroken, correspondence of the forensic report and sample numbers, performance of a particular test adhering to a precise protocol, and—by leaving the remarks blank—that nothing affected the sample's integrity or the analysis's validity. Those representations about past events and human actions are meet for cross-examination, and the comparative reliability of machine-derived data does not overcome the Sixth Amendment bar.

Whether the unsworn blood-alcohol analysis report is testimonial and thus subject to the Confrontation Clause.. Yes. The report fell within the core class of testimonial statements, and the absence of notarization does not remove the certification from Confrontation Clause governance.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities