State v. Michael R. Griep, 863 N.W.2d 567

Police stopped Michael Griep for speeding; field sobriety tests and preliminary breath test indicated impairment; blood drawn and sent to the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene.
Analyst Diane Kalscheur performed ethanol testing and produced a laboratory report certifying a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.152; a supervisor (Thomas Ecker) peer‑reviewed and certified the report.
Kalscheur was unavailable to testify at Griep’s trial; the State called Patrick Harding (toxicology section chief) who reviewed the laboratory file (chromatograms, calibration checks, run data) and testified to an independent opinion that Griep’s BAC was 0.152.
Griep objected under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, relying on Crawford, Melendez‑Diaz, Bullcoming, and related authority.
The circuit court admitted Harding’s testimony; the court of appeals affirmed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted further review to resolve Confrontation Clause application to substitute expert testimony.

Issue	Griep's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Harding’s testimony (based in part on tests by an unavailable analyst) violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	Harding’s testimony impermissibly introduced the analyst’s out‑of‑court, testimonial results without cross‑examination (Melendez‑Diaz/Bullcoming)	Harding conducted a review of raw data and formed an independent expert opinion, so testimony is not a mere conduit and satisfies Williams	Court held no violation: under Williams/Barton, a qualified expert who reviews the lab file and forms an independent opinion may testify in place of the original analyst
Whether subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Bullcoming, Williams v. Illinois) disturb Williams/Barton rule	Griep argued later federal decisions restrict the surrogate‑expert approach	State argued Bullcoming/Williams v. Illinois do not control because those cases involved different fact patterns or admission of the lab report itself; Williams/Barton remain controlling here	Court concluded Williams and Barton remain applicable; Bullcoming and Williams v. Illinois do not mandate a different result on these facts

State v. Williams, 253 Wis. 2d 99 (Wis. 2002) (allows a qualified expert who reviews another analyst's data and forms an independent opinion to testify in place of the original analyst)
State v. Barton, 289 Wis. 2d 206 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (applies Williams: supervisory reviewer’s independent opinion satisfied confrontation)
State v. Deadwiller, 350 Wis. 2d 138 (Wis. 2013) (post‑Williams v. Illinois analysis; applies Williams/Barton framework)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial out‑of‑court statements inadmissible absent unavailability and prior cross‑examination)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic reports are testimonial; analysts must be available for confrontation if report admitted)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (admission of a lab certification through testimony of a witness who neither performed nor observed the test violated confrontation)
Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (fractured decision concerning expert testimony based on non‑testifying analysts; limited, split guidance on scope)