Questioning Lab Reports at Trial
A slew of court opinions in the past 10 years examine issues relating to the introduction of lab tests and lab reports at trial. These cases are important in many DUI cases, because the prosecution will seek to use the lab report as evidence, while the defense attorney will try to keep it out of court.
Many of the opinions about lab reports relate to Confrontation Clause issues. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution requires that a defendant in a criminal case have the opportunity to confront – meaning, usually, to cross-examine – witnesses used against him.
In the foundational case of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court said that a witness for the prosecution’s prior statement cannot be used at trial if he is not present at the trial to be questioned and cross-examined. The prior statement is called “testimonial” evidence. Cross-examination enables the defense to question the witness’s recollection of his or her prior statement and draw the witness’s credibility into issue.
Later cases expand on the basic principal established in the Crawford case. For example, the Supreme Court found that a sworn statement explaining the results of a lab test was testimonial evidence and could not be admitted unless a witness testified as to the truth of the statement. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009).
The witness who testifies as to the truth of a lab report’s contents cannot be a “surrogate” for an unavailable crime lab technician. In Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), the technician who did the blood draw for the defendant’s blood alcohol test after he refused a breath test for DUI was unavailable to attend the trial. Instead, the prosecution called another technician as a witness. The defendant challenged the conviction because he could not confront the original technician and won.
The law on lab reports at trial seemed straightforward until the Supreme Court decided Williams v. Illinois, 567 US _ (2012). In the case, the prosecution tried to question a DNA expert about a DNA report prepared by an absent lab technician. The Court reached a split decision, but four justices thought that prosecutors would not violate the defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights by calling the expert to provide his own opinion about what the report meant.
After Williams, varying results in numerous lower court cases have failed to reach a consensus on the specifics of admitting lab reports, especially when the preparing technician is not present at trial. In the meantime, Defense attorneys will continue to question whether admitting lab reports at trial violates the Confrontation Clause.
If you need representation in an Oklahoma court for a DUI charge, talk to the best. Clint Patterson, Esq., of Patterson Law Firm, a former Tulsa prosecutor now using his trial experience and expert-level knowledge of DUI science to defend drivers, knows how to challenge lab report evidence at trial. To schedule a case evaluation, visit Patterson Law Firm online or call Clint’s office at (918) 550-9175.