United States v. Summers
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24982
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Summers was arrested on November 18, 2004 in Capitol Heights, wearing a black North Face jacket; he fled but surrendered after a chase.
- A jacket matching Summers’s flight path was found with a handgun, ammunition, and crack cocaine in separate bags.
- The jacket was sent to the FBI lab, with custody logged from May 2005; four lab staff signed for it, none of whom were the testifying DNA analysts.
- A DNA expert (Shea) testified that Summers was the major contributor to DNA on the jacket, based on analyses conducted at the Quantico lab; the data were summarized in a three-page report (Exhibit 25).
- Summers was convicted on Counts One and Two (possession with intent to distribute crack and possession of a firearm by a felon); Count Three (firearm during a drug-trafficking crime) was acquitted.
- The district court admitted the jacket and the DNA report; Summers appealed raising Confrontation Clause and chain-of-custody concerns; the Fourth Circuit affirmed, with Judge Floyd concurring in judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause applicability of non-testifying lab analysts. | Summers; Summers contends log and DNA testing by non-testifying analysts violated Confrontation Clause. | United States; the DNA data were machine-generated and testimony from the supervising expert sufficed. | No reversible error; admission of the jacket and DNA testimony did not violate Confrontation Clause. |
| Whether the jacket’s custody log and chain of custody raised Confrontation concerns. | Summers argues chain-of-custody gaps require live testimony. | Government showed authentication; missing links do not bar admissibility if item identified. | District court did not abuse discretion; chain-of-custody requirements satisfied for admissibility. |
| Harmless error analysis for DNA testimony and jacket admission. | Error was prejudicial as to identity and ownership. | DNA testimony was largely cumulative; the same verdict would result without it. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no error required reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (established Confrontation Clause test for testimonial statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (made distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (certificates are testimonial; cross-examination required)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (S. Ct. 2011) (machine-generated results may be testimonial if created for evidentiary purpose)
- United States v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2007) (raw data from machines not testimonial; lab reports may be admitted via live testimony)
- United States v. Moon, 512 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2008) (machine read-outs not testimonial; supports non-testifying data)
- United States v. Turner, 591 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2010) (supervisor testifies about data; minimizes need for underling analysts)
- United States v. Phillips, 640 F.2d 87 (7th Cir. 1981) (authentication of real evidence; chain-of-custody not iron-clad)