The People v. Peter Austin, 97

Defendant was charged with burglaries from two incidents in 2009; blood/swabs from the scenes were sent to OCME and DNA profiles were generated.
A CODIS match linked the 2009 crime-scene profiles to defendant’s profile; the People declined to introduce the CODIS “cold hit.”
The People obtained a post-indictment buccal swab from defendant in 2012; OCME generated a profile and compared its numerical DNA identifiers to the 2009 profiles.
At trial the only forensic witness was an OCME Criminalist III who did not perform, witness, or supervise generation of the 2012 profile and relied on laboratory reports and others’ work not admitted into evidence.
Defense objected under the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules; the trial court admitted the criminalist’s testimony about the match despite his lack of personal involvement.
Jury convicted on counts tied to the June 2009 burglaries; Appellate Division affirmed and this Court reversed, ordering a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting testimony from a forensic witness who did not generate, witness, or supervise the challenged DNA profile violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	The People relied on an OCME criminalist to explain and compare DNA profiles; expert testimony based on others’ lab work (not admitted) is admissible	The 2012 post‑accusation profile was testimonial (created to identify defendant) and admitting surrogate testimony of non-testing analysts violated Crawford/Melendez‑Diaz; defendant had right to cross‑examine the analyst who generated the numerical profile	Reversed: admission violated Confrontation Clause because the criminalist was merely a conduit for out‑of‑court analysts who generated the critical numerical DNA identifiers; defendant entitled to cross‑examine an analyst who performed/witnessed/supervised or independently analyzed the raw data
Whether the Confrontation error was harmless	The People argued other evidence (e.g., surveillance video) supported convictions	Defendant argued DNA evidence was critical and without it proof was not overwhelming	Not harmless: there is a reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict; new trial ordered

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (establishes Confrontation Clause rule requiring cross‑examination for testimonial statements)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (lab reports that are testimonial require the analyst’s live testimony or prior cross‑examination)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (U.S. Court plurality opinion addressing expert testimony that relies on out‑of‑court lab reports)
People v. John, 27 N.Y.3d 294 (NY Court of Appeals: defendant entitled to confront analyst who generated or supervised DNA profile or independently analyzed raw data)
People v. Pealer, 20 N.Y.3d 447 (discusses primary purpose test for testimonial statements)
People v. Rawlins, 10 N.Y.3d 136 (primary purpose/ex parte‑like examination analysis)
People v. Brown, 13 N.Y.3d 332 (distinguishing cold‑hit contexts)
People v. Goldstein, 6 N.Y.3d 119 (limitations on expert testimony relying on unproven foundational facts)
People v. Nieves, 67 N.Y.2d 125 (hearsay exceptions and limitations on relaying unadmitted lab reports)
People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 (harmless‑error standard applied in criminal cases)