Supreme Court Revisits Rule for Admitting Crime Lab Evidence at Trial

August 12, 2012

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a defendant in a criminal case the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." This means that anyone facing criminal charges should be able to meet their accusers in court and test the evidence being offered against them through the purifying fire of cross-examination.

In a limited array of circumstances, testimonial statements may be admitted into evidence, but generally only when the person who made the statement is unavailable to appear in court, and when the defendant had some prior opportunity to question the evidence through cross-examination. Indeed, the Sixth Amendment right to confront one's accusers is fundamental in our system of justice.

Crime lab reports have become an increasingly important source of evidence in modern criminal cases. But what are the Sixth Amendment implications of using crime lab evidence against a defendant? The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a new opinion, the latest in a string of decisions on the issue, which seems to do more to obfuscate the question than to clarify it.

Confrontation Right As To Lab Reports Has Progressed Through Several Stages

Back in 2004, the Supreme Court case Crawford v. Washington confirmed that testimonial statements made outside of trial may generally only be admitted against a defendant when the person making the statement is unavailable and there has been some opportunity for the defense to cross-examine. The Court in Crawford specifically stressed that the reliability of the evidence made little difference in whether it could be admitted under a Sixth Amendment analysis; the Sixth Amendment does not protect defendants from unreliable evidence, it guarantees them the right to confront their accusers.

Flash forward to 2009 and the groundbreaking case Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. In Melendez-Diaz, the Supreme Court explicitly extended Crawford to cover forensic analysis reports. Forensic evidence, the Court ruled, is testimonial in nature, and there was not sufficient justification to carve out a Sixth Amendment exception for forensic reports. To put it succinctly, the Supreme Court made it clear that crime lab reports were not to be used against a defendant in a criminal trial unless the analysts that created them showed up in court to provide live testimony.

Just last year, in 2011, the Supreme Court reaffirmed and strengthened the Melendez-Diaz ruling in the case Bullcoming v. New Mexico. In Bullcoming, the defendant's blood alcohol level had been tested in a forensic analysis, and the prosecution wanted to introduce the result against him. However, the prosecution did not produce the analyst who certified the blood alcohol test results, and instead substituted a different analyst to testify with respect to the testing machine and standard testing procedures. Not good enough, said the Supreme Court; even though the prosecution argued that the certifying analyst did nothing more than transcribe machine generated test results, the Court ruled that the defendant had a right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the analyst who had actually performed the test on his individual sample.

The Supreme Court's position on the Sixth Amendment as applied to forensic testing may be changing, however. In June of 2012, the Court released its decision in Williams v. Illinois. Williams concerned a sexual assault; when the defendant was arrested on an unrelated charge, his DNA was run through a police database, connecting him to the crime he was ultimately charged with. A forensic scientist at the state police laboratory had analyzed the defendant's DNA sample, and testified about it at his trial on the sexual assault trial, which created no constitutional problems.

But, the genetic material originally recovered from the sexual assault victim did raise some questions. This sample was analyzed by Cellmark Diagnostics Laboratory in Maryland; the report from Cellmark was not entered into evidence at the trial, and no one from Cellmark testified at trial. However, an expert witness for the prosecution was permitted to offer her opinion that the two DNA profiles (the one recovered from the assault and the one belonging to the defendant) were a match.

Four out of the nine Supreme Court justices agreed that the case was conducted properly and the use of the Cellmark report had been appropriate. Their reasoning was that the Cellmark report was not offered to prove that what was in it was true -- which is the hallmark of testimonial evidence -- so the right to confrontation did not apply. In addition, they said that the confrontation clause did not apply because the Cellmark report was not the kind of evidence the Sixth Amendment was meant to address; rather than being created to secure a conviction, its purpose was finding a rapist who was on the loose. A fifth justice joined with this outcome (upholding the result and use of the Cellmark report), although disavowed the reasoning.

The minority opinion, joined by four justices, asserted that the case should be clear cut, that only direct confrontation of the analyst who prepared the Cellmark report would have met the required constitutional hurdle.

In an opinion concurring with the majority, Justice Breyer said he believes both Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming were decided incorrectly, that requiring testimony from lab analysts as to scientific results is unnecessary and a logistical nightmare.

What Does the Latest Ruling Mean For Criminal Defendants?

Williams did not overturn Crawford, Melendez-Diaz or Bullcoming; criminal defendants still have the right to confront those offering testimony against them, including lab analysts who prepared forensic reports. This is an important right, one that can mean the difference between a conviction and a "not guilty" verdict. For now, lower courts are being urged to continue to follow the old rulings unless and until a majority of the Supreme Court unequivocally changes the standards set forth in Crawford, Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming.

If you are facing criminal charges, your lawyer may have a strong chance at discrediting forensic evidence offered against you. Talk to an experienced defense attorney today to learn more about the new Supreme Court ruling and to begin building a strategy that can defuse unfavorable laboratory test results.

Article provided by Greg S. Law, PLLC
Visit us at www.greglawlegal.com