People of Michigan v. Arthur Larome Jemison, 952 N.W.2d 394

Background

In 1996 a sexual assault occurred; a rape kit was collected but remained unanalyzed until 2015.
Samples were sent to an out-of-state lab (Sorensen); analyst Derek Cutler reported a male DNA contributor from a vaginal swab.
Michigan State Police compared the Sorensen results to CODIS and linked the DNA to Arthur Jemison; he was charged and tried for first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
The prosecution sought to have Cutler testify by two-way interactive video; the trial court allowed it over Jemison’s objection; Cutler testified he had not seen the kit and relied on other analysts’ notes.
A jury convicted Jemison; the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Maryland v. Craig and similar precedent to find confrontation protections adequate via video.
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed: it held Crawford governs testimonial evidence, two-way video testimony of an available expert over objection violated the Confrontation Clause, and remanded for harmless-error and MCR 6.006(C) analysis.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether two-way interactive video testimony from an available forensic analyst violated the Confrontation Clause	Video allowed live cross-examination and demeanor observation; preserves confrontation	Video denied face-to-face confrontation with an available, testimonial witness	Violated confrontation rights under Crawford; face-to-face required for testimonial evidence unless witness unavailable and prior cross-examination occurred
Whether an expert forensic analyst is exempt from ordinary confrontation concerns	Expert testimony poses fewer credibility concerns and can be treated differently	Expert is a witness against the defendant and must be confronted like any prosecution witness	Expert witnesses called by prosecution are subject to the Confrontation Clause (Melendez-Diaz)
Whether Craig (child-one-way-video) permits two-way video for non-child, non-victim experts due to reliability/public policy	Craig and Pesquera justify video as constitutionally sufficient because testimony can be reliable and observed	Craig is limited to its facts (child victims); Crawford displaced Roberts reliability-balancing	Craig does not control here; its rationale cannot be extended to permit video for available, testimonial experts; expense/convenience are inadequate justifications
Whether the trial court’s violation of MCR 6.006(C) and the Confrontation Clause can be harmless and what standard applies	The Court of Appeals treated the rule violation as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Defense sought reversal and remand for constitutional review and proper harmless-error analysis	Supreme Court directed remand to Court of Appeals to decide (1) whether MCR 6.006(C) error is subject to harmless review, (2) applicable standard, and (3) whether error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

Key Cases Cited

Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (established pre-Crawford reliability-balancing test)
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (allowed one-way video for child witnesses under Roberts reliability framework)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (rejected Roberts; testimonial evidence requires face-to-face confrontation unless witness unavailable and prior cross-examination occurred)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (prosecution’s expert/testifying analysts are witnesses against the defendant and subject to Confrontation Clause)
Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (historical emphasis on face-to-face confrontation as central to the Clause)
Delaware v. Van Arsdell, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (harmless-error principles for constitutional trial errors)
People v. Pesquera, 244 Mich. App. 305 (2001) (Court of Appeals decision applying Craig to videotaped testimony)
People v. Buie, 491 Mich. 294 (2012) (Michigan Supreme Court opinion that cited Craig in a different procedural context)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (plurality decision addressing expert use of out-of-court statements)