United States v. Katso
2015 CAAF LEXIS 588
| C.A.A.F. | 2015Background
- Appellee was convicted by a general court-martial of aggravated sexual assault, burglary, and unlawful entry under Articles 120, 129, and 134, UCMJ.
- DNA evidence was analyzed by USACIL; Davenport offered independent expert testimony based on the case file and data, not the Final Report itself.
- CCA reversed, finding the Final Report testimonial and Davenport a conduit for out-of-court statements, and held the error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Issue certified to the Court: whether the Air Force CCA erred in concluding Davenport’s testimony violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and whether the error was harmless.
- Majority held Davenport’s testimony did not violate confrontation; he performed independent analysis and relied on non-testimonial data, so the ruling was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
- Dissent argued Fisher, the initial lab technician, should have testified to address potential contamination; disagreement on whether such error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davenport’s testimony violated confrontation | Katso; Davenport repeated testimonial statements from the Final Report. | Katso; Davenport had independent knowledge and did not merely conduit testimonial statements. | No violation; testimony admissible. |
| Was Davenport a witness against or a conduit for others' statements | Davenport merely echoed out-of-court statements from Fisher. | Davenport conducted independent review of case file and data. | Davenport was a witness with independent analysis. |
| Application of Crawford given availability of Fisher | Crawford applies when testimonial statements are at issue and unavailability limits cross-examination. | Fisher was unavailable to testify, so Crawford should apply. | Crawford not triggered; Fisher was available, thus no violation under Crawford. |
| Harmlessness of the error | Confrontation violation was not harmless given DNA evidence’s central role. | Independent analysis by Davenport undermines the potential impact of any testimonial statements. | Harmlessness not established; majority concluded admissibility without error; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (drug analysis certificates require appearance of analysts)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony cannot convey an analyst’s observations)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (conflicting views on admitting testimonial data through experts)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial statements)
- Blazier II, 69 M.J. 218 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (experts may rely on others’ data but must form independent opinions)
- Katso, 74 M.J. 273 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (federal-confrontation framework applied in military context)
- Tearman, 72 M.J. 58 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (framework for distinguishing testimonial vs. non-testimonial data)