United States v. Tearman
72 M.J. 54
C.A.A.F.2013Background
- Appellant was convicted by special court-martial of wrongful marijuana use under Article 112a, UCMJ, with bad-conduct discharge and reduction to E-1 as sentence.
- NDSL conducted THC testing on Appellant’s urine; LAN assigned; positive result above DoD cutoff.
- DD Form 2624 drug testing report included chain-of-custody documents, machine data, and internal review worksheets.
- NMCCA held most chain-of-custody and internal worksheets were non-testimonial; blocks G and H (official test result and certification) were testimonial.
- Military judge admitted the entire drug testing report under 803(6) as a business record; defense challenged Confrontation Clause objections.
- This Court granted review to address whether the challenged items were testimonial and whether any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chain-of-custody docs and internal worksheets are testimonial | Tearman—documents are testimonial | Tearman—documents are non-testimonial | Non-testimonial |
| Whether DD Form 2624 blocks G/H are testimonial and their admission was harmless | Blocks G/H are testimonial and error not harmless | Blocks G/H are testimonial but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Testimonial; admission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sweeney, 70 M.J. 296 (C.A.A.F.2011) (testimonial determination framework for lab reports)
- United States v. Blazier (Blazier II), 69 M.J. 218 (C.A.A.F.2010) ( Harmless error and testimonial analysis in lab reports)
- United States v. Blazier (Blazier I), 68 M.J. 439 (C.A.A.F.2010) (initial confrontation ruling on lab reports)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (articulates when lab certificates may be testimonial)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (certificates of analysis treated as testimonial)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (formulation of testimonial statements in confrontational analysis)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (origin of Confrontation Clause enforcement principles)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (major post-Crawford discussion on testimonial lab data)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (Van Arsdall balancing factors for harmless error)