DISHAROON v. State, 291 Ga. 45

Disharoon and McIntyre were convicted at trial of multiple charges involving sex with a minor, with the victim's DNA found on items at their home.
Connie Pickens testified as an expert on the DNA results, but admitted she did not personally perform every step of the testing; she read instrument results and confirmed controls worked.
Defense objected to Pickens' testimony as inadmissible hearsay and a Confrontation Clause violation under Melendez-Diaz.
Court of Appeals relied on prior Georgia decisions holding that a supervisor or non-testifying analyst's testimony about lab results did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
The United States Supreme Court later issued Bullcoming v. New Mexico, holding surrogate testimony by a non-participating analyst could violate the Confrontation Clause.
The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to reconsider in light of Bullcoming and ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding no Confrontation Clause violation under these facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Pickens' testimony violate the Confrontation Clause	Disharoon and McIntyre argue surrogate DNA testimony breaches Confrontation Clause.	State contends prior Georgia rulings allow supervisor testimony without Bellmouth, and Bullcoming is distinguishable.	No Confrontation Clause violation under these facts; affirmed.

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (surrogate testimony violates Confrontation Clause when tester not present)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (laboratory reports need live testimony for Confrontation Clause)
Carolina v. State, 302 Ga.App. 40 (2010) (lab supervisor's testimony about tests not fatal to Confrontation Clause claim)
Herrera v. State, 288 Ga. 231 (2010) (lab testimony by supervisor adequate under Confrontation Clause)
Dunn v. State, 292 Ga.App. 667 (2008) (admission of lab supervisor's conclusions did not violate Confrontation Clause)