Frederick Grim v. Marshall Fisher, 816 F.3d 296

Grim was convicted in Mississippi for sale of cocaine base; at trial a technical reviewer (Erik Frazure) testified that the substance was cocaine though he did not perform or observe the underlying lab tests; the primary analyst (Gary Fernandez) did not testify.
Frazure reviewed the analyst’s work packet and data, verified procedures and results, agreed with the conclusions to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, and signed the lab report as the technical reviewer.
Grim challenged admission of Frazure’s testimony under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause; Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, applying a state two-part test (intimate knowledge + active involvement) and finding Frazure satisfied it.
Grim sought federal habeas relief arguing the state court decision conflicted with Bullcoming v. New Mexico (Confrontation Clause requires confronting the analyst who performed the test).
The federal district court granted habeas relief, concluding Bullcoming clearly established the defendant’s right to confront the test-performing analyst; the Fifth Circuit reversed, applying AEDPA deference and holding Bullcoming did not clearly establish that only the original analyst may testify when a technical reviewer had substantial involvement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bullcoming clearly establishes that, when a forensic lab report with a testimonial certification is introduced, the prosecution may only satisfy the Confrontation Clause by calling the analyst who performed the underlying test.	Grim: Bullcoming requires calling the analyst who performed the test; surrogate testimony by a reviewer violates the Confrontation Clause.	State (Mississippi/Respondents): Bullcoming forbids only the extreme surrogate in that case; a technical reviewer with intimate knowledge and active involvement may testify without violating the Clause.	Held: Bullcoming does not clearly establish the categorical rule Grim asserts; it forbids surrogate testimony like in Bullcoming but does not clearly define a bright line disallowing testimony by a technically involved reviewer like Frazure.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements by non-testifying witnesses absent unavailability and prior cross-examination)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certificates prepared for use at trial are testimonial; analysts must be available for confrontation absent exception)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. _ (2011) (holding that an analyst’s testimonial laboratory certification cannot be admitted via the in-court testimony of a scientist who neither signed the certification nor performed/observed the test)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA: clearly established federal law is the governing legal principle set forth by Supreme Court holdings)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA standard is highly deferential; state-court rulings require clear error beyond fairminded disagreement)