MERAS v. Sisto, 676 F.3d 1184

Background

Meras, a California prisoner, was convicted of robbery, burglary, and assault with a deadly weapon based on DNA evidence from blood on a pair of jeans found in his apartment.
Criminalist Jennai Lawson performed DNA analysis and prepared a lab report identifying the DNA as Peabody's; Lawson testified in Meras's first trial.
In Meras's second trial, Lawson was unavailable to testify; the state called her supervisor, Jill Spriggs, to testify to the contents of Lawson's report under the hearsay exception.
The trial court admitted Lawson's report through Spriggs under the business records hearsay exception, allowing Spriggs to summarize the report's contents for the jury.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed Meras's conviction, the California Supreme Court denied review, and Meras filed a federal habeas petition challenging the Confrontation Clause ruling.
The district court denied the habeas petition; the Ninth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on whether admitting a non-testifying expert's lab report violated the Sixth Amendment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the lab report is testimonial under Crawford.	Meras contends the report is testimonial and its introduction violated the Confrontation Clause.	Sisto argues the report falls outside Crawford as non-testimonial when admitted via business records or supervisor testimony.	No clear, reasonable application of Crawford established; state court not unreasonable under AEDPA.
Whether Lawson’s unavailability at retrial satisfied the Crawford exception.	Lawson's absence, due to caring for a dying mother, could render unavailability insufficient or unclear.	The State attempted good-faith measures; Lawson's unavailability may meet the exception since she testified at the first trial.	Unresolved factual record; AEDPA deferential standard prevents decision as to unavailability.
Whether Spriggs’s supervisor testimony could satisfy the Crawford supervisor exception (Bullcoming line).	Spriggs, as Lawson's supervisor, might substitute for the primary analyst.	Bullcoming left open whether a supervisor’s testimony suffices; record insufficient to decide.	Unresolved question; not decided de novo; deferential review applied.
AEDPA standard: whether California court reasonably applied clearly established federal law.	Crawford clearly established the rule that testimonial statements require confrontation.	State court could reasonably apply Crawford given the unsettled expert-testimony landscape.	California court did not unreasonably apply Crawford; affirmed denial of writ.

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation right applies to testimonial statements unless unavailable and cross-examined)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic lab reports testimonial; confrontation needed)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (S. Ct. 2011) (supervisor/alternative testimony—limited reach; live witness required)
Greene v. Fisher, 132 S. Ct. 38 (S. Ct. 2011) (AEDPA review of clearly established federal law as of state-court decision)
Ocampo v. Vail, 649 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (mentioned as context for Crawford-related standards)
Bailey v. Newland, 263 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2001) (illustrates reliance on lack of clear Supreme Court standard)
Thompson v. Battaglia, 458 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2006) (supports view of lack of uniform standard among courts)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (clear-and-convincing standard for deference in AEDPA review)