United States v. Ramos-Gonzalez
664 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2011Background
- Ramos charged with possession with intent to distribute over 500 g cocaine; jury_convicted.
- Morales testified about Borrero's report, not his own testing; Borrero unavailable.
- Institute chemist Borrero originally listed; substituted with Morales three days before trial.
- Morales testified to the results of Borrero's analysis, lacking personal analysis.
- Court allowed Morales to testify under Rule 703, treating it as expert review.
- Conviction vacated and remanded for new trial due to Confrontation Clause violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause violation from unadmitted testimonial statements | Ramos: Morales transmitted Borrero's testimonial results | Government: Morales provided admissible expert review under Rule 703 | Violation; Morales testimony not permissible as hearsay |
| Preservation and standard of review of the Sixth Amendment claim | Objection preserved; review de novo | Argument should be plain error review | Reviewed de novo; error reversible |
| Harmlessness of the Sixth Amendment error | Error not harmless; Morales crucial to proving cocaine | Error harmless due to corroboration | Not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; remand warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (limits on surrogate testimony for testimonial evidence)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 250 (2009) (certificates of analysis are testimonial statements)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause baseline for testimonial statements)
- Valencia-Lucena v. United States, 925 F.2d 506 (1st Cir. 1991) (lay testimony identification of drugs; reliability factors)
- Paiva v. United States, 892 F.2d 148 (1st Cir. 1989) (reliability of lay testimony identifying drugs)