910 F.3d 828
5th Cir.2018Background
- Jenkins was arrested after officers found and seized rock-like substances; two rocks were recovered and later tested.
- The Mississippi Crime Lab report, signed by analyst Alison Smith (case analyst) and reviewer Timothy Gross (technical reviewer), concluded the evidence contained cocaine weighing 0.1 gram.
- Smith (the analyst who performed the tests and weighing) was unavailable at trial due to medical leave; Gross testified about the lab results as technical reviewer. Defense objected under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
- Jenkins was convicted by a jury and, as a habitual offender, sentenced to life without parole. Mississippi state courts affirmed; Jenkins sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming a Bullcoming violation.
- The district court denied habeas relief after the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Grim v. Fisher; the Fifth Circuit panel here affirmed, holding the state-court decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting a technical reviewer’s testimony in place of the analyst violated the Confrontation Clause (Bullcoming) | Jenkins: Testimony by Gross substituted for the absent analyst Smith and is indistinguishable from Bullcoming, so Confrontation Clause violation | State: Gross reviewed the analyst’s data, signed the report, and had sufficient involvement; Bullcoming does not clearly prohibit testimony by a reviewer | Held: No clearly established law violation; state decision reasonable (affirmed) |
| Whether Gross could legitimately testify about the substance’s weight given absence of raw weighing data | Jenkins: Gross lacked the raw data (Smith’s worksheet) so could not give a genuine analytical opinion about weight | State: Record and state courts indicate Gross reviewed the data and verified results; absence of worksheet from federal record does not prove no data existed | Held: Court will not infer absence of data; limited to state-court record per Cullen v. Pinholster; no relief granted |
| Scope of Bullcoming—whether it established a categorical rule requiring the testifying witness to be the exact analyst who performed the test | Jenkins: Bullcoming requires confronting the particular analyst whose certification is offered | State: Bullcoming’s holding is narrower; it forbids testimony by someone who neither performed nor observed the test, but does not categorically bar testimony by reviewers who participated in review and signed reports | Held: Bullcoming is not so categorical; facts here are distinguishable; no clear Supreme Court rule violated |
| Whether the state court’s decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under AEDPA | Jenkins: Mississippi Supreme Court’s affirmance contradicted Bullcoming and warrants habeas relief | State: Grim and the uncertain boundaries of Bullcoming mean the state decision was reasonable | Held: Under AEDPA deference, state court’s ruling was not unreasonable; habeas denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (holding that admission of a forensic report through testimony of a scientist who neither signed the certification nor performed/observed the test violated the Confrontation Clause in that context)
- Grim v. Fisher, 816 F.3d 296 (5th Cir.) (applying Bullcoming and holding that testimony by a technical reviewer who reviewed an analyst’s data and signed the report did not violate clearly established law)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (holding federal habeas review under §2254 is limited to the state-court record)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (recognizing Confrontation Clause issues arising from forensic certificates and evidentiary paradigms)