State v. Lui, 315 P.3d 493

Lui was charged with murder; forensic evidence tied him to the victim and scene.
DNA evidence, temperature readings, toxicology, and autopsy reports were admitted at trial.
DNA testing involved Orchid Reliagene labs; a supervisor (Pineda) testified about the results.
Debate centered on whether lab analysts’ testimony invoked the Confrontation Clause.
Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, then Supreme Court of Washington granted review after Williams v. Illinois.
Major issues: whether state constitution provides independent rights and how the U.S. Confrontation Clause applies to experts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Independent state reading of confrontation right	Article I, §22 provides broader protection	No independent reading warranted; federal standard controls	State reading declined; federal standard applied
Confrontation rights for expert testimony	Experts relying on others’ tests violate confrontation	Experts may rely on others’ data without cross-examining all	Adopted a conduit-based test; some expert testimony allowed with safeguards
DNA testing—testimony via supervisor vs. analysts who performed tests	Supervisor reciting others’ work violates confrontation	Supervisor can explain data without cross-examining all technicians	DNA evidence admissible via supervisor who understood procedures; final analysis by expert must be cross-examined
Temp readings as confrontation issue	Temperature data used to inculpate; must be cross-examined	Temperature data not by itself inculpatory; relies on expert interpretation	Not a confrontation violation; relied upon by expert to form conclusions
Toxicology and autopsy reports as testimonial	Reports are non-testimonial machine outputs	These reports are testimonial and require cross-examination	Found testimonial and admitted; but harmless error given overwhelming untainted evidence

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (established testimonial/witness concept and confrontation baseline)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (primary purpose test for testimonial statements)
Crawford; Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (U.S. 2011) (emergency/new contexts affecting testimonial status)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates as testimonial; live cross-exam required)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (S. Ct. 2011) (testimony cannot be substituted by surrogate lab data)
Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (S. Ct. 2012) (pluralsity on DNA testimony; limits of testimonial status)