State v. Keck, 137 Ohio St. 3d 550

Keck was convicted of multiple counts involving underage victims based on DNA evidence and related data.
Keck stipulated to the admissibility and content of a nontestifying analyst's DNA report prepared by Mark Losko.
Kristen Slaper, a BCI forensic scientist, offered testimony relying on Losko's report and generated her own DNA profiles.
Losko did not testify; Slaper described his role and used his data to link Keck to incriminating evidence.
The Fourth District held Keck’s confrontation rights were not violated because Keck waived them by stipulation to Losko's report.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding that stipulating to the admissibility and content of the nontestifying report waives confrontation challenges to relying testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation waiver via stipulation	Keck argues the waiver only covered admissibility, not use by Slaper.	Keck contends Slaper testified as a surrogate for Losko without opportunity to cross-examine.	Waiver valid; testimony relying on the report does not violate confrontation.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation generally required for testimonial statements)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (certificates of analysis deemed testimonial)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (surrogate testimony cannot substitute for confronted analyst)
Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (non-inculpatory or explanatory use of external DNA data may be non-testimonial)