People v. Barner
2015 IL 116949
| Ill. | 2015Background
- John Barner was convicted of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and sentenced to natural life; convictions affirmed through multiple appeals and remands, and the Illinois Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on confrontation issues.
- Victim identified Barner at a photo array, a physical lineup, and at trial; medical and corroborating witness testimony placed her at the scene and described injuries and evidence collection.
- Semen was found on the victim’s underwear; ISP analyst Greg DiDomenic generated an RFLP profile from that stain and obtained a CODIS hit to Barner’s profile.
- Some laboratory work was performed by nontestifying analysts at ISP (Wildhaber, Olson, Lambatos) and at private lab Cellmark; testifying experts (DiDomenic, Jove, Dr. Reynolds) performed technical reviews and relied on those analysts’ notes/results.
- Defense argued admission of the testifying experts’ recounting of nontestifying analysts’ work violated the Sixth Amendment confrontation right under Crawford and progeny; trial court admitted the testimony and the Illinois Supreme Court reviewed whether those out-of-court reports were testimonial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Barner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of testimony recounting RFLP work by nontestifying ISP analysts (Wildhaber, Olson) | Testimony was proper because DiDomenic reviewed notes, performed his own analysis, and the out-of-court work was nontestimonial. | Barner argued the original analysts’ work produced the inculpatory profile and their statements were testimonial, triggering Crawford protections. | The Court held those reports were nontestimonial (produced before any suspect was identified for this case, lacked formality), so admission did not violate Confrontation Clause. |
| Admission of testimony recounting STR work by nontestifying Cellmark and ISP analyst (Cellmark unnamed, Lambatos) | Same: testifying experts performed technical reviews and opinions; STR updates were routine/administrative (conversion to STR) and not prepared to incriminate Barner. | Barner argued STR reports were prepared (or used) to target him and thus testimonial; admission violated confrontation. | The Court did not definitively decide testimonial status but held any Confrontation Clause error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming other evidence. |
| Testimony about CODIS entry and reliance on nontestifying analysts for truth of their reports | State implicitly: testimony about CODIS hit and technical reviews explain experts’ opinions and are permissible under Williams/Leach. | Barner asserted such statements were testimonial hearsay and offered for truth, requiring confrontation. | These contentions were forfeited or inadequately developed and not addressed on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (establishing Confrontation Clause protection for testimonial out-of-court statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishing testimonial from nontestimonial statements based on primary purpose)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (forensic certificates prepared for evidentiary use found testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (lab report created for evidentiary purpose held testimonial; surrogate testimony insufficient)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (plurality: expert testimony recounting lab results may not violate Confrontation Clause when reports not prepared to incriminate and statements used to explain expert opinion)
- People v. Leach, 2012 IL 111534 (Illinois Supreme Court analysis applying Crawford/Davis/Williams tests to forensic reports and defining testimonial inquiry)