United States v. Blazier
2010 CAAF LEXIS 1053
| C.A.A.F. | 2010Background
- Appellant Blazier, a senior Airman in the U.S. Air Force, challenged drug testing evidence admitted at his court-martial.
- Two multi-page drug testing reports from the Brooks Lab included a cover memorandum and extensive machine-generated data.
- The cover memoranda identified substances and results and were sworn by a Laboratory Certifying Official; Dr. Vincent Papa testified as an expert.
- Defense objected to the memoranda and Dr. Papa’s testimony as Confrontation Clause and hearsay violations; trial admitted the documents over objection.
- The government argued Dr. Papa could interpret and rely on the nonhearsay data to form his expert opinion.
- Caselaw discussion focused on whether testimonial statements in the cover memoranda violated Crawford/Melendez-Diaz and how an expert may rely on machine data and other testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did trial admission of testimonial cover memoranda violate the Confrontation Clause? | Blazier argued memoranda are testimonial and un-cross-examined declarants violated confrontation. | Blazier contended Dr. Papa as expert could satisfy confrontation by testifying and interpreting data. | No; cross-examination of Papa did not cure the Confrontation Clause violation. |
| May an expert rely on/testify about testimonial hearsay without repeating it? | Papa’s testimony would repeat hearsay contained in memoranda. | Expert can rely on but not repeat admissible/nonadmissible hearsay if conclusions are independent. | Yes; an expert may rely on nonhearsay machine data and admissible basis, but cannot repeat testimonial hearsay. |
| Is machine-generated data hearsay, and can it support an expert's opinion? | Machine printouts are unreliable if they reflect testimonial content. | Machine data are not hearsay and may underpin admissible expert testimony. | Machine-generated data are not hearsay and can underpin expert conclusions. |
| Was the drug testing testimony harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | Testimony containing testimonial hearsay could contribute to conviction. | Harmless error analysis should consider entire record and alternative supports. | Remand for full harmlessness review to determine if error was harmless in context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause requires cross-examination for testimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (S. Ct. 2009) (Laboratory certificates are testimonial; cross-examination required)
- Mejia, 545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008) (Expert reliance on hearsay with independent opinion limits repetition)
- Moon, 512 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2008) (Expert may rely on data but not repeat testimonial hearsay)
- Law, 528 F.3d 888 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Expert testimony may depend on data from other sources)
- Washington, 498 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2007) (Court discusses admissibility of expert reliance on data)
- Lamons, 532 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2008) (Machine-generated data not hearsay)