812 F.3d 62
1st Cir.2016Background
- On Oct. 6, 2004, Barbosa was accused of shooting Geraldo Carbuccia and assaulting Edward Serret; a nine-millimeter pistol was later recovered from a catch basin near where officers encountered Barbosa fleeing.
- DNA testing by analyst Cheryl Delatore produced a results table linking the victim (Serret) as a possible source of blood on Barbosa’s clothing; Julie Lynch, a supervising criminalist, testified about the testing but did not perform the laboratory work herself and had signed Delatore’s report.
- At trial Lynch testified (including some recitation of Delatore’s table) and offered her own opinion based in part on Delatore’s results; the results table prepared by Delatore was admitted into evidence without objection from Barbosa.
- A Suffolk County jury convicted Barbosa of first-degree murder and related charges; the Massachusetts SJC affirmed but concluded admission of Delatore’s results table and Lynch’s recitation violated the Confrontation Clause, though it deemed the error harmless under the state ‘‘miscarriage of justice’’ review.
- Barbosa sought federal habeas relief claiming Crawford/Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming established that admitting non-testifying analyst results (and testimony relying on them) violated the Sixth Amendment; the district court denied relief and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting Lynch’s expert opinion (which relied on Delatore’s tests) violated the Confrontation Clause | Lynch’s opinion impermissibly relied on out-of-court, non-testifying analyst work (Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming) | Lynch testified live and could be cross-examined about the basis of her opinion; Melendez-Diaz did not clearly forbid such testimony | Court: No habeas relief — Melendez-Diaz did not clearly establish that admitting Lynch’s opinion (as presented) violated the Confrontation Clause by Sept. 7, 2010 |
| Whether admission of Delatore’s results table and Lynch’s recitation of it violated the Confrontation Clause and required habeas relief | Admission of the table and recitation was testimonial and violated the Sixth Amendment | State conceded the Confrontation Clause was violated but argued the error was harmless/cumulative given Lynch’s testimony and other strong evidence | Court: Violation acknowledged but harmless under Brecht — no substantial and injurious effect on the verdict |
| Whether procedural default (no contemporaneous objection) bars federal review | Barbosa defaulted and cannot obtain habeas relief absent cause and prejudice or miscarriage of justice | State did not press procedural-default bar and urged merits review/harm analysis | Court: Declined to enforce procedural default; proceeded to consider the merits/harm |
| Standard for habeas relief given a preserved constitutional error | Barbosa argued the error required reversal | State argued harmless-error standard on habeas (Brecht) applies and was met | Court: Applied Brecht; error was not substantially injurious given cumulative DNA testimony and overwhelming non-DNA evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (confrontation problem with admission of forensic certificates from non-testifying analysts)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (testimonial forensic report requires testimony of the actual analyst or comparable opportunity for cross-examination)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements absent opportunity for cross-examination)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (plurality opinion addressing admissibility of expert testimony that relies on another analyst’s testing)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas relief requires that constitutional error had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict)