United States v. Tearman, 2012 CCA LEXIS 10

Appellant, among ~44 Marines, was randomly selected for urinalysis; sample tested positive for THC at NDSL.
The Government later requested the empty bottle and DTR materials for court-martial use without naming the appellant.
Before trial, appellant moved to exclude the DTR as testimonial hearsay; motion in limine denied.
Ms. Kaminski, NDSL chemist, testified about testing methodology and contents of Prosecution Exhibit 4 over objection.
Military judge admitted portions of Prosecution Exhibit 4; court relied on Magyari to classify DTR as partly non-testimonial.
On appeal, court held that two portions of the DD 2624 were testimonial and error, but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; findings and sentence affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of testimonial hearsay violated Confrontation Clause	Appellant argues DTR is testimonial hearsay and its admission breached Sixth Amendment rights.	Government argues the DTR is largely non-testimonial and any error was harmless.	Harmful error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; findings and sentence affirmed.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court 2009) (certifications can be testimonial; testing certificates may be testimonial)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (Supreme Court 2011) (certification of testing results can be testimonial)
United States v. Magyari, 63 M.J. 123 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (urine tests deemed non-testimonial where no basis to foresee trial use)
United States v. Sweeney, 70 M.J. 296 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (focus on purpose of statements within DTR; cover memoranda testimonial)
Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (irreparable harm is the most important factor for a preliminary injunction)