United States v. Sweeney
2011 CAAF LEXIS 704
C.A.A.F.2011Background
- Appellant was convicted by special court-martial of failure to go to duty, absence without leave, making a false official statement, and wrongful use of cocaine; sentence included confinement and bad-conduct discharge.
- NMCCA affirmed; this Court granted review to address Confrontation Clause issues arising from admission of Navy drug screening documents.
- In Feb. 2008, after unauthorized absence, NMPS required urinalysis; Appellant provided a sample under OIC-directed testing.
- NDSL tested the sample; initial immunoassays were presumptively positive for cocaine and codeine; GC/MS confirmed cocaine; testing and documentation included chain-of-custody, data review sheets, and a specimen custody document.
- The drug-testing report and an unsigned report summary were pre-admitted by the military judge subject to defense objections about foundation/chain of custody; the Government did not call Flowers or Sroka, but Marinari testified as to the report’s contents.
- NMCCA relied on Magyari to deem the drug reports non-testimonial; the majority later analyzes Magyari in light of Melendez-Diaz, Blazier I/II, and Bullcoming to reassess testimoniality and plain-error implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether drug-testing reports are testimonial under Confrontation Clause. | Sweeney contends reports are testimonial after Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming. | Sweeney (defendant) argues the lab documents are non-testimonial under Magyari and related precedent. | Partially sustained; plain-error framework applicable; analysis hinges on primary-purpose concept per Bullcoming and related precedents. |
| Waiver or forfeiture of Confrontation Clause objections. | Appellant failed to object in a way that preserved the issue due to Magyari-era expectations. | Government argues no forfeiture occurred; defense did not timely object. | Forfeiture, not waiver, applies; plain-error review nonetheless governs. |
| Whether the cover memorandum and specimen custody document were plain-error-plainly testimonial. | These documents are testimonial and require confrontation of declarants. | Only some components may be testimonial; others are not, and the trial record supports admissibility. | Cover memorandum and specimen custody document were plain and obvious error; reversal required for those items; remand to assess harmlessness. |
| Whether any remaining non-testimonial statements within the drug-testing report were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | Even if some parts are testimonial, the combination with machine-generated data could sustain conviction. | If key testimonial elements are excluded, the remaining evidence may be insufficient. | Remand to determine whether the inadmissible statements were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; other documents not plainly testimonial. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Blazier (Blazier II), 69 M.J. 218 (C.A.A.F.2010) (testimony and cover memoranda implicated by Crawford/Bullcoming lines)
- United States v. Blazier (Blazier I), 68 M.J. 439 (C.A.A.F.2010) (drug-laboratory documents and testimonial nature distinctions)
- Magyari v. United States, 63 M.J. 123 (C.A.A.F.2006) (drug testing reports non-testimonial where testing is unit-driven)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (primary-purpose test; testing as evidentiary; surrogate testimony concerns)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (certifications as testimonial when created for proving a fact)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause requires cross-examination of testimonial statements)
- Harcrow, 66 M.J. 154 (C.A.A.F.2008) (early confrontation-analysis in military urinalysis context)
- Cavitt, 69 M.J. 413 (C.A.A.F.2011) (recognizes Confrontation Clause protections in military context)
- United States v. Sweeney, 70 M.J. 296 (C.A.A.F.2011) (central confrontational analysis for military drug testing documents)