Garlick v. Lee
1 F.4th 122
| 2d Cir. | 2021Background:
- In 2013 James Garlick was convicted of first-degree manslaughter after the prosecution introduced an OCME autopsy report describing stab wounds and concluding cause/manner of death was homicide.
- The autopsy was performed by Dr. Katherine Maloney on Nov. 2, 2011 at the request of police; the report was certified, sealed, and delivered to the Bronx DA.
- At trial the report was admitted as a business record and introduced through Dr. Susan Ely, an OCME pathologist who did not perform or prepare the autopsy; Garlick objected under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
- The prosecution repeatedly relied on the autopsy report to attribute the fatal stab wounds to Garlick and to prove intent; no witness testified that Garlick had a knife and Garlick denied having one.
- The New York Appellate Division, First Department affirmed, holding the autopsy report was not testimonial because it did not link the crime to Garlick (relying on People v. Freycinet and related NY authority).
- The federal district court granted habeas relief under AEDPA, concluding the state court unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court Confrontation Clause law; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garlick) | Defendant's Argument (Lee/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the autopsy report was "testimonial" under the Sixth Amendment | The report was testimonial because it was prepared at police request, formalized, delivered to prosecutors, and intended for use in prosecution | The report was not testimonial because it did not directly link the crime to Garlick and thus falls outside testimonial category | Autopsy report is testimonial under Crawford/Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming |
| Whether admitting the report via a surrogate witness violated the Confrontation Clause | Admitting via Dr. Ely deprived Garlick of the chance to cross-examine the certifying examiner who prepared and signed the report | Admissible through surrogate testimony and as a business/public record under NY practice | Admission through a surrogate violated the Confrontation Clause; surrogate could not substitute for the certifying examiner |
| Whether the First Department unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent under AEDPA § 2254(d)(1) | State court decision unreasonably applied Crawford/Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming by creating a category of non-testimonial autopsy reports | State relied on state-court precedents (Freycinet/John/Acevedo) and argued reasonable application | Second Circuit: First Department’s ruling was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; habeas relief affirmed |
| Whether any Confrontation Clause error was harmless | The report was central, used to eliminate alternative suspect and prove intent; no other medical evidence connected Garlick to stab wounds | State pointed to other evidence (video, ID, Rivera’s statement) and verdicts on related counts | Error was not harmless—report was crucial and noncumulative; prejudice required relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Victim/witness statements taken for prosecution may be testimonial; confrontation required)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Forensic certificates prepared for prosecution are testimonial; analysts must testify)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (Surrogate testimony cannot replace the certifying analyst for testimonial forensic reports)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (Fragmented decision offering limited guidance on experts recounting out-of-court analyses)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (AEDPA grants high deference to state-court factual and legal determinations)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (Federal review under § 2254(d)(1) compares state-court decision against Supreme Court precedent existing at that time)
- White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415 (Habeas relief does not require an identical prior Supreme Court factual pattern)
- People v. Freycinet, 11 N.Y.3d 38 (NY Court of Appeals held some autopsy reports not testimonial when they do not link a defendant)
- People v. John, 27 N.Y.3d 294 (NY Court of Appeals reiterating that redacted autopsy reports can be non-testimonial when not linking commission to a person)