People v. John, 27 N.Y.3d 294

Defendant was arrested after an altercation where he allegedly pointed a gun at the complainant; police found a loaded Smith & Wesson in the building basement and swabbed the gun for DNA.
OCME processed the gun swabs and later defendant’s buccal (exemplar) swab; both produced identical 16‑loci male DNA profiles linking defendant to the gun.
Multiple OCME analysts participated in different stages (extraction, quantitation, amplification, electrophoresis and editing); different analysts prepared and initialed editing sheets and profile tables.
The prosecution admitted OCME laboratory reports and a table of the two numerical DNA profiles into evidence through testimony of Melissa Huyck, an OCME criminalist who did not perform, witness, or supervise the testing that generated the profiles but reviewed and endorsed the reports.
Defendant objected under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, relying on Crawford, Melendez‑Diaz, and Bullcoming; trial court admitted reports, defendant convicted; Appellate Division affirmed; New York Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial.

Issue	People’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether admission of OCME DNA laboratory reports (showing defendant’s profile on the gun) violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	Reports admitted as business records through Huyck; Huyck reviewed files and opined profiles matched — surrogate testimony suffices	Reports are testimonial; under Bullcoming and Melendez‑Diaz the analysts who performed/generated the profiles must testify and be subject to cross‑examination	Reversed — admission violated confrontation rights because the reports were testimonial and the testing analysts who generated the profiles were not produced for cross‑examination; surrogate testimony from Huyck was insufficient
If reports are testimonial, which laboratory personnel must testify? (i.e., all analysts or a subset)	Practical burden of producing every analyst is undue; not all technicians need to testify; an independent reviewer or comparing analyst can suffice	At least the analyst(s) who generated the definitive numerical profile should testify; surrogate testimony that merely parrots reports is inadequate	Court held an “all‑analysts” rule is not required; but where the lab report is testimonial, at least one analyst who performed, supervised, witnessed, or made an independent analysis of the final profile must testify (surrogate who merely vouches for others is inadequate)

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (establishes testimonial hearsay/Crawford confrontation framework)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (forensic certificates are testimonial; analyst must testify unless unavailable and defendant had prior cross‑examination)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (surrogate testimony from an analyst who did not perform or observe testing does not satisfy Confrontation Clause)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (plurality opinion narrowing primary‑purpose test and creating tension; held no violation where out‑of‑court profile not admitted and expert’s opinion was based on non‑testimonial use; fractured decision)
People v. Brown, 13 N.Y.3d 332 (NY Court of Appeals holding certain DNA graphs/raw data may be non‑testimonial where testifying expert performs independent analysis)
People v. Meekins, 10 N.Y.3d 136 (DNA comparison reports containing raw graphical data are not testimonial where they do not directly link defendant to crime and a testifying expert made the match)
People v. Pealer, 20 N.Y.3d 447 (articulates and applies the primary‑purpose test in NY for determining whether government records are testimonial)