Huge win for DUI defendants
Typically when a prosecutor intends to present a forensic or toxicology
report, they must subpoena the person who actually did the work that
produced the report. However, in DUI cases, prosecutors have
successfully been allowed to admit the report without the supporting
testimony. 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.
On June 23rd the United States Supreme Court ruled that those accused in all criminal prosecutions have the right to be confronted by adverse witnesses, including lab technicians who analyze blood samples for DUI prosecution. Bullcoming v. New Mexico,131 S.Ct. 587 (2010).
In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed a ruling from the New Mexico Supreme Court that accepted the trial testimony of a different forensic analyst who neither tested the accused's blood sample or prepared the report of the resulting blood alcohol level. In the opinion of the Court, this procedure denied the accused the opportunity to cross-examine the actual analyst involved in the testing and certification.
On June 23rd the United States Supreme Court ruled that those accused in all criminal prosecutions have the right to be confronted by adverse witnesses, including lab technicians who analyze blood samples for DUI prosecution. Bullcoming v. New Mexico,131 S.Ct. 587 (2010).
In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed a ruling from the New Mexico Supreme Court that accepted the trial testimony of a different forensic analyst who neither tested the accused's blood sample or prepared the report of the resulting blood alcohol level. In the opinion of the Court, this procedure denied the accused the opportunity to cross-examine the actual analyst involved in the testing and certification.
Comments