Garrett v. State
518 S.W.3d 546
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Bradley Garrett was convicted of first-degree murder; jury assessed 30 years’ confinement. Appeal raises a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause challenge to DNA testimony.
- At the crime scene a baseball cap was recovered; swabs from the cap and a buccal swab from Garrett were tested for DNA. Witnesses (including an eyewitness who identified Garrett) tied him to the shooting.
- Clay Davis, a forensic DNA analyst, testified about DNA analysis steps and opined that Garrett could not be excluded as a contributor to the major component of a DNA mixture from the cap; his lab report was admitted into evidence.
- Defense later obtained certificates of analysis showing two other HFSC analysts (Kristina Blackmon and Maria Rumble) had performed extraction/amplification steps but neither testified; raw instrument data from their work was not admitted.
- Defense argued admission of Davis’s report/testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because the non-testifying analysts performed crucial testing but were not subject to cross-examination; the trial court overruled the objection and the State rested without calling the other analysts.
- On appeal the court considered whether this situation is controlled by Bullcoming/Burch (which require the tester to testify) or by Paredes (permitting testimony by an analyst who independently analyzes raw, computer-generated DNA data).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of Davis’s testimony and report violated the Confrontation Clause | State: Davis independently analyzed raw instrument-generated DNA data and testified to his own conclusions; non-testifying analysts only produced raw data | Garrett: Non-testifying analysts performed extraction/amplification; Davis lacked personal knowledge of their work and thus surrogate testimony violated Bullcoming/Burch | Court held no violation: Davis performed the analysis/interpretation of raw data, testified and was cross-examined; Paredes controls |
| Whether error was preserved for appeal | State: Objection on Confrontation was untimely because raised after Davis testified | Garrett: Timing unclear when defense learned of other analysts; court should waive forfeiture | Court declined to find forfeiture and reached merits |
| Whether raw DNA data are testimonial or equivalent to an analyst’s report | Garrett: Certificates of analysis show testimonial lab work by non-testifying analysts | State: Raw, computer-generated DNA profiles are non-testimonial and require expert analysis to become evidentiary | Court agreed raw data are non-testimonial; the analyst’s independent opinion is the testimonial matter subject to cross-examination |
| Applicability of Bullcoming/Burch vs Paredes | Garrett: Analogous to Bullcoming/Burch — surrogate testimony of someone who didn’t perform tests is forbidden | State: Follows Paredes where testifying analyst used raw data to form independent opinion | Court applied Paredes and distinguished Bullcoming/Burch; admitted Davis’s testimony and report |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements unless witness testifies or was previously cross-examined)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (certificates of analysis are testimonial; testing analysts must be available for confrontation)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (surrogate testimony by an analyst who did not perform or observe the test violates the Confrontation Clause)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (plurality opinion limiting Confrontation Clause reach where out-of-court statements are not offered for their truth but to explain expert assumptions)
- Burch v. State, 401 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (applied Bullcoming to exclude lab-reviewing analyst testimony when tester did not testify)
- Paredes v. State, 462 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (testifying analyst who independently analyzed raw, computer-generated DNA data may testify though other analysts who generated raw data did not testify)