332 Conn. 678
Conn.2019Background
- Defendant (Walker) was arrested in Dec. 2012 for murder/robbery; police recovered a black bandana from the victim’s car that a witness identified as worn by the shooter.
- Police obtained a court-ordered postarrest buccal swab from Walker (June 2013) to generate a known DNA profile for comparison with DNA from the bandana.
- At the state lab, a “known processing group” produced numerical DNA profiles from the buccal swab; Supervisory Analyst Heather Degnan independently generated profiles from the bandana and compared them to the known profiles.
- Degnan testified she did not perform or observe the buccal-swab testing but received the known profile and paperwork indicating standard procedures were followed; she ‘‘swore to the accuracy’’ of the provided profile and included the numerical profile in her written report (admitted at trial).
- The jury convicted Walker; on appeal he argued his Sixth Amendment confrontation right was violated because the analyst(s) who produced the known profile did not testify. The Appellate Court upheld most convictions; the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Walker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of the numerical DNA profile (from Walker’s buccal swab) through Degnan violated the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause | Degnan was the testifying expert who performed the critical comparison and expressed her independent opinion; her testimony sufficed and did not admit out-of-court testimonial statements | The known profile was testimonial hearsay created after arrest for prosecutorial use; Degnan neither generated nor observed the buccal-swab testing and thus merely relayed others’ out-of-court assertions — requiring the actual analyst’s testimony | Court held the admission violated the confrontation clause: the known profile was testimonial hearsay and Degnan was not an adequate surrogate; Walker is entitled to a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay is admissible only if witness unavailable and prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (primary-purpose test: statements testimonial when objectively intended to create evidence for prosecution)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (lab certificates made for prosecution are testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (surrogate testimony insufficient when the reporting analyst did not testify about the specific test)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (fractured decision on forensic profiles; plurality and dissent disagree on testimonial analysis)
- People v. John, 27 N.Y.3d 294 (N.Y. 2016) (DNA profiles generated for prosecution are testimonial; comparing analyst must be someone with knowledge of the known profile)
- Commonwealth v. McCowen, 458 Mass. 461 (2011) (allele numbers from a nontestifying analyst admitted in a comparison are testimonial hearsay)
- State v. Sinclair, 332 Conn. 204 (Conn. 2019) (apply pre-Williams precedent: statements are testimonial when made with primary purpose of creating a record for trial)