The People, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Reynaldo Santos Dungo, Defendant and Appellant — Werdegar, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice Werdegar concurred in the majority's reasoning and result, concluding that a forensic pathologist's recorded anatomical and physiological observations in an autopsy report were not testimonial and therefore did not violate the confrontation clause when repeated by another pathologist. She emphasized that the observations lacked sufficient formality and were made primarily as part of an independent medical examination rather than as a substitute for trial testimony. Justice Corrigan, dissenting, would have found the observations testimonial and the admission of the testimony unconstitutional; Justice Chin, concurring, relied on a combined application of the competing approaches in the fractured Supreme Court decision discussed in the opinion to reach the same result as the majority.