United States v. Drayton, 8:13-cr-00251

Drayton was arrested after a July 21, 2011, traffic stop on the Baltimore–Washington Parkway for suspected intoxication; blood was drawn involuntarily and sent to a toxicology lab in the DC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
Laboratory testing involved initial alcohol and PCP screens by technicians, followed by confirmation testing and a repeat test when controls failed; Zarwell, the lab’s Deputy Chief Toxicologist, reviewed the process and data.
Zarwell testified at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 702 about Drayton’s blood alcohol (.048 g/100 mL) and PCP (.01 mg/L) after reviewing a litigation packet containing machine-generated raw data and summary sheets.
Drayton objected that Zarwell acted as a conduit for non-testifying technicians’ hearsay reports, arguing Confrontation Clause violations under Bullcoming and Williams.
Judge DiGirolamo reserved ruling, later concluded Zarwell’s independent opinion was based on raw machine data, not testimonial reports, and admitted the Confrontation Clause claim was without merit.
The magistrate judge ultimately denied relief and the district judge affirmed, holding the Confrontation Clause was not violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause applicability to machine-generated data	Drayton argues Zarwell relied on non-testifying technicians’ reports	Drayton contends Zarwell acted as conduit for hearsay	Denied; machine data not testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes
Whether Zarwell had independent basis for his opinion	Zarwell relied on others’ reports, not raw data	Zarwell based opinion on raw data	Resolved in favor of government; Zarwell testified to independent opinion based on raw data
Admissibility of the litigation packet and its contents	Packet contained testimonial reports	Packet never admitted; not relied on for truth	Packet not admitted into evidence; no evidentiary error in its use

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (testimonial certificate rule; expert cannot rely on missing tester’s testimony)
Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (plurality on admissibility of non-testifying report; focus on provenance/primary purpose)
United States v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2007) (raw machine data not hearsay; machine not a declarant)
Summers, 666 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2011) (Washington remains controlling post-Bullcoming)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (testimony vs. certificates; concerns about hearsay and confrontation)