Commonwealth v. Munoz, 461 Mass. 126

Defendant stopped March 2, 1994; three bags of cocaine found in car; passenger in vehicle was a minor.
Field test by Det. Donnelly indicated cocaine; bags weighed; police later sent samples to DPH lab.
Jaszek, senior chemist, confirmed weight 19.90 g and cocaine identity via GC and MS.
Hanchett, substitute analyst, testified to independent conclusions based on Jaszek’s data and notes.
Decker testified about the stop and read a redacted Donnelly report; Donnelly’s notes not admitted.
Trial occurred in 2010 after long delay; multiple prior witnesses and documents became central to the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation clause: substitute analyst testimony on identity	Barbosa allows independent opinion but not reliance on test reports	Bullcoming bars substitute testifying to original report	No reversible error; independent opinion admissible under Barbosa
Hearsay via recorded recollection	Recorded recollection used to admit police reports	Reports contained hearsay; witness lacked revivable memory	Admittion improper; but no substantial miscarriage of justice
Weight of cocaine testimony by substitute analyst	Independent analysis supports identity and weight	Weight data were simply arithmetic of original notes	Error to admit weight; but not prejudicial given other evidence
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s strategy reasonable under circumstances	Strategy unreasonable; defense focus misaligned	Not indiscernibly unreasonable; trial counsel effective

Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 457 Mass. 773 (Mass. 2010) (independent opinion by substitute DNA analyst allowed; cannot relay original report on direct examination)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (substitute analyst cannot introduce testing report; cross-exam meaningfulness limited)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial; confrontation required)