*1 MEXICO v. NEW BULLCOMING 23, 2011 June 2011 Decided Argued March 09-10876. No.
Jeffrey by appointment Fisher, Court, L. 562 U. S. argued petitioner. the cause for him on the With Amy briefs Karlan, Howe, were Pamela Roth, S. Susan and Kevin K. Russell.
Gary King, Attorney argued K. Mexico, of New General respondent. the cause for the brief With him on were Ann Harvey,. Grayson, Marie James Wilson, W. M. and Victoria Attorneys Assistant General.* of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Innocence
* Briefe
Findley,
Scheck;
Keith A.
by
Neufeld,
Barry
Network
Peter J.
C.
and
for
Miller,
Law
Stephen
Murphy,
se,
A.
E.
by
Professors et al.
pro
Erin
Mosiellor,
se,
se;
Robert
pro
Ciannelli,
P.
pro
and Paul C.
for the National
Lawyers
Association of
Bergman,
et al. Barbara E.
by
Criminal
Defense
Smith,
Stamm,
e,
Al&ncmdraFreedman
Leonard R.
Ronald L. Moo-t McShane;
Justin J.
for the Public
for
Defender Service
the District of
Levick,
Sandra
F. Easterly,
by
Columbia et al.
K.
Didi
Catherine
H. Sai
lings,
Saari, Carey Haughwout,
Claudia S.
Cunningham,
Hon. Abishi C.
(Ret.),
Neuhard,
Stuart;
Jr.
Jim
and John
D.
Richard
Friedman
Friedman,
pro se.
Mr.
Briefs of amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed for the
were
State of
Harris, Attorney
California et
Kamala D.
al.
California,
General of
John
McGinnis,
Lynne
Michael Chamberlain Attorneys
G.
Deputy
Gillette,
Dane R.
General,
E.
Attorney General,
Chief Assistant
Donald
*4
Nicola,
de
Engler,
A.
Deputy
General,
State
Gerald
Solicitor
Senior
As-
Sullivan,
Attorney General,
sistant
and Laurence K
Supervising Deputy
Nathan,
B.
General, by
Irvin
Attorney
Attorney
Acting
General of the
Suzuki,
Columbia,
and Russell A
Attorney
District of
Acting
General of
Hawaii,
by the Attorneys
respective
General for their
States as fol-
Troy
King Alabama,
lows:
of
John J.
Tom Horne
Alaska,
Burns of
of Ari-
zona,
John TV Suthcrs
of Colorado,
Joseph
R.
Biden III
Pam-
Delaware,
of
Jo
ela
Bondi of
Florida,
G.
Idaho,
Madigan
Lawrence Wasden of
Lisa
of
Illinois, Gregory F.
Zoeller
D.
Iowa,
of Indiana,
Tom Miller
James
of
“Buddy”
Maine, Douglas
Caldwell
Louisiana,
of
William J. Schneider
of
F.
of
Gansler
Maryland,
Coakley Massachusetts,
Martha
Bill Schuette
of
opinion of the Court,
ex
delivered
Ginsburg
Justice
6.†
cept
to Part IV and footnote
as
(2009),
Massachusetts,
In the case before was (DWI). charges driving while intoxicated arrested of Principal Bullcoming against awas forensic labora- evidence Bullcoming’s tory report certifying blood-alcohol con- aggravated the threshold DWI. centration was well above analyst prosecution not call as witness the At did trial, signed Instead, the State called an- who certification. laboratory’s testing with the who other was familiar participated procedures, neither nor but had observed Bullcoming’s sample. The New Su- test on Mexico blood although preme that, blood-alcohol determined analysis the Confrontation Clause did not “testimonial,” testimony. analyst’s require certifying Instead, in-court Buttock Montana, Steve Cath- Minnesota, Lori Swanson of of Michigan, of Delaney A. Nevada, erine Michael Hampshire, of New Cortez Masto of Drew DoWino Ed Ohio, of Paula T. Dow of New Miehael W A Jcraoy, Island, Marty F. J. of Rhode mondson of Kilmartin Oklahoma, Peter Jr., Tennessee, Greg Cooper, of Jackley E. Abbott Robert Dakota, of South T. Cuccinelli II of Utah, Mark L. of Kenneth Texas, Virginia, of Shurtleff Hollen B. Wisconsin, M. J. Van Washington, Robert McKenna Attorneys Salzburg Wyoming; District Bruce A for the National Aaco Thorpe; Scott and W. and for the ciation et al. Albert C. Looker State Laboratory Division, Health, Department Mexico Scientific of New Trickey. Elizabeth Anne Kagan Sotomayor join IV of all but Part † Justice Justice IV and all Part footnote opinion. joins but Justice Thomas *5 high testimony held, New Mexico’s court live of another ana- lyst requirements. satisfied the constitutional question presented is whether the Confrontation permits prosecution Clause the to introduce a forensic labo- ratory report containing a testimonial certification—made purpose particular through proving for the fact— sign in-court of a scientist who did not the certifi- perform reported cation or observe test the certifi- surrogate testimony cation. We hold that of that order does requirement. not meet the constitutional The accused’s right analyst is to be confronted with who made cer- tification, unless at trial, unavailable and the opportunity, pretrial, had accused to cross-examine that particular scientist.
I A August by petitioner In vehicle driven Donald Bullcoming pickup rear ended a truck anat intersection in Farmington, New Mexico. When the truckdriver exited his approached Bullcoming exchange vehicle and insurance Bullcoming’s eyes information, he noticed that were blood- Smelling Bullcoming’s shot. alcohol on breath, the truck- police. Bullcoming driver told his wife to call the left police apprehended scene before the arrived, but was soon performance an officer who sobriety his observed of field Upon failing Bullcoming tests. tests, was arrested for driving a vehicle intoxicating while “under the influence of (DWI), liquor” § in violation of N. M. Stat. Ann. 66-8-102 (2004). Bullcoming po-
Because test, refused take a breath analysis. authorizing lice obtained a warrant a blood-alcohol Bullcoming’s sample Pursuant the warrant, blood hospital. Bullcoming’s was drawn at a local To determine (BAC), police sample blood-alcoholconcentration sent the Department to the New Mexico Scientific Health, Labora- *6 (SLD). form titled “Re- SLD tory In a standard Division testing participants the Analysis,” in port Blood Alcohol of analyst his find- certified the identified, and forensic were ing. App. 62. ' top . . . block “information the contained in SLD’s Ibid, (capitalization by arresting [the] officer.” filled in [the] omitted). the sus- “reason included This information “Accident”), (the and the stopped” pect [was] checked officer (“18:25PM”) (“8.14.05”) sample was the blood and time date omitted). Ibid, arresting officer (capitalization drawn. Bullcoming and witnessed had arrested that he also affirmed contained certi- two blocks The next the blood draw. Ibid. Bullcoming’s and blood the who drew the fications nurse sample employee sent to the blood who received intake SLD laboratory. Ibid. the report presented segments, the “cer-
Following these the ibid, omitted), completed analyst,” (capitalization of tificate analyst Caylor, forensic as- signed the SLD and Curtis sample, signed Bullcoming’s 62, 64-65. blood test Bullcoming’s sample Caylor was that the BAC recorded inordinately high grams per level. milliliters, hundred 0.21 “[t]he th[e] Caylor seal sam- that Id., at also affirmed laboratory,” ple the was and broken received intact analyst’s report] [the are cor- block “the statements procedures set out on the rect,” and that “followed he had “procedures” report.” th[e] in- Those Ibid. the reverse of sample “retai[n] analysts, alia, con- inter structed analysis,” any “not[e] and to tainer and raw data from might integrity affect the circumstance condition which analysis.” validity sample or otherwise affect Finally, Id., of re- at 65. in a block headed “certificate Caylor’s analysis viewer,” the reviewed SLD examiner who Caylor qualified test, conduct BAC certified handling procedure” and ana- and that the “established sample Id., lyzing Bullcoming’s “ha[d] been followed.” at 62 omitted). (capitalization analysts gas chromatograph
SLD use machines to deter- requires Operation spe- mine BAC levels. of the machines knowledge training. steps cialized are Several involved gas chromatograph process, in the error human can step.1 at each occur chromatography widely quantita Gas used scientific method of
tively analyzing the constituents H. generally mixture. See Mc 2009) (hereinafter Miller, (2d Nair J. Chromatography & Basic Gas ed. McNair). protocol, Under SLD’s testing standard extracts samploo containing two blood them inserto into vialo an “internal *7 App. standard” —a chemical additive. 53. See McNair 141-142. The an alyst “cap[s] sample[s],” the “erimp[s] then them an aluminum [two] with - top,” placeo gaa App. the the chromatograph vialo into machine. 53 hours, 54. a few produces printed graph Within thio device a a chroma r togram along with representing generated calculations a software inte — pretation of Department Health, the data. See Brief for New Mexico SLD, as Amicus Curiae 16-17.
Although presented testimony the State obtaining an accurate that BAC merely “look[ing] measurement entails [gas chromatograph] at the ma rocord[ing] resultn,” chine and App. authoritative sources reveal a that the so simple quantit matter is not “In perform certin. order to analyses tive satisfactorily rigorous and . . . support the results under court, analyst of, to, examination in good must be and adhere aware analytical prácticos why.” being understand what is done and Staf (B. ford, 91, 114 Chromatography, Principles Toxicology of Forensic Lev 2006). (“Errors ine any 2d ed. See step also McNair 137 that occur in can go chromatographic paid invalidate the best bo analysis, attention must Bartell, all steps.”); McMurray, ImObersteg, D. Attacking M. & A. 2010) Defending (2d §16:80 Drunk Driving (stating Tests revision that 93% of erroro in laboratory for tests BAC levels arc human errora that occur analyze samples). cither before or after machines after Even machine has produced printed result, a chromatogram its review of the may indicate that test was not McNair 207- 214. valid. See Nor is the risk of negligible. error human so as to be Amici remote usj inform example, for a neighboring Colorado, single that in forensic laboratory produced at readings least 206 flawed blood alcohol over throe-year span, prompting prosecutions. the diamisoal of criminal several See Brief for Lawyers National Association Criminal et Defense al. as analyst Amici Curiae 32-33. An improper had used amounts the in- standard, ternal causing chromatograph systematically machine to in- supported Bullcoming’s Caylor’s report BAC was 0.21 that aggravated threshold for which prosecution DWI, the for § grams milliliters, 66 - 8- per hundred a BAC of 0.16 102(D)(1). charged Bullcoming accordingly with The State serious crime. this more
B jury 2005, after our November case tried The was (2004), Washington, but 541 U. S. decision v. Crawford day trial, the State an Melendez-Diaz. On before analyst calling SLD Curtis it not be nounced that would “very recently put [been] Caylor as a he had witness because unpaid revealed. 2010-NMSC- leave” a reason not (internal quotation ¶ 3d 007, 8, 147 N. 226 P. 487, 492, M. omitted); App. defense counsel ob marks 58. A startled complained, jected. prosecution, had never dis The she “out there ... witness commenced, trial closed, until Bullcoming’s sample].” [was] [of Id., not the analyst [who [she] known that, stated “had Counsel opening, Bullcoming’s blood] available," her tested very “may have been dramat her well indeed, entire defense proposed ically State, however, at 47. Id., different.” during Caylor’s finding “business record” as a to introduce *8 testimony an SLD who Razatos, scientist the of Gerasimos Caylor’s analysis. Id., reviewed had neither observed nor at proposal. opposed Id., at
Bullcoming’s
the State’s
counsel
testimony,
Caylor’s
defense counsel main-
44-45. Without
finding
analyst’s
would violate
tained, introduction
right
Bullcoming’s
“to be
with
confronted
Sixth Amendment
said,
error,
supervisor
analyst’s
was
The
BAC
fiate
measurements.
Errors,
DUI: 206
9
on Flawed
“fairly complex.” Ensslin,
Tally
Final
(inter
19, 2010, pp. 1,2
Gazette, Apr.
Reduced,
Springs
Colorado
Tossed
omitted),
http://www.gazette.com/articloo/
at
quotation
available
nal
marko
(All
as visited June
Internet materials
report-97354-police-discuss.html.
file.)
in
ease
21, 2011, and included
of Court’s
Clerk
Ibid.2 The trial
the witnesses
court
against him.”
over
id.,
ruled
objection,
46-47,
admitted the
SLD
57.3
as business
report
record,
44-46,
con
jury
victed
and the
Bullcoming
DWI,
New Mexico
aggravated
Court of
Appeals upheld
conviction, concluding
“the
blood alcohol
in the
case was
report
present
non-testimonial
with
prepared routinely
guarantees
trustworthiness.”
C While Bullcoming’s was before appeal pending New Court decided Melendez-Diaz. Mexico Court, Supreme In case, “[t]he into Massachusetts courts admitted [had] evidence affidavits the results forensic reporting analysis which showed that material seized con- police nected to the defendant 557 U. S., was cocaine.” at 307. “ Those affidavits, held, ‘testimonial,’ Court were render- ing the affiants ‘witnesses’ subject to the defendant’s right Ibid. of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.” of Melendez-Diaz, In light the New Mexico Supreme that the acknowledged blood-alcohol introduced trial as Bullcoming’s qualified testimonial evidence. Like the affidavits in Melendez-Diaz, observed, the court the re- port “functionally live, identical in-court testimony, doing precisely what a witness does direct examination.” atM., N. P. 3d, at 8 (quoting
2The State called as witnesses the arresting officer and nurse who drew Bullcoming’s Bullcoming object blood. did to the State’s failure employee call SLD intake reviewing analyst. or the “It up the prosecution,” Massachusetts, observed Melendez-Diaz the Court v. 557 U. S. 305, 311, (2009), n. 1 steps custody “to what chain of decide require arc evidence; so crucial as to ia introduced what but (if objects) must the defendant be introduced live.” that, The trial judge practice, noted he when started out law “there *9 were They just no breath or brought tests tests. in the cop, blood said, ‘Yeah, the cop he App. drunk.’” was 310-311).4 court reasons, two the Nevertheless, S., at violate the did not Confron- held that admission tation Clause. Caylor analyst certifying a mere “was court
First, said generated “simply the results scrivener,” who transcribed gas at chromatograph M., 494-495, 147 N. machine.” although analyst Razatos, 3d, at Second, 226 P. 8-9. SLD Bullcoming's “quali testing participate blood, he did not gas respect expert to the chromato- with fied as an witness pro at 9. “Razatos graph 3d, 226 P. Id., machine.” testimony,” stated, thus, “and, the court live, vided in-court regarding operation was available for cross-examination [Bullcoming’s] test, BAC machine, of the . . . the results laboratory procedures.” Ibid. and the SLD’s established explained, testimony court because crucial, Razatos’ Bullcoming machine or the writ not could cross-examine “[Bullcoming’s] report. at 10. But 3d, P. Id., 496,226 ten right preserved,” concluded, the court of confrontation was analyst, qualified able to serve as Razatos was a because Caylor. surrogate for Ibid. question: granted Does the certiorari to address
We
prosecution
permit
to introduce a
Confrontation Clause
containing
laboratory report
a testimonial certifica-
forensic
through
prove
trial,
a criminal
fact at
made in order
tion,
sign
who
did
of an
the in-court
perform-
perform
personally
or observe
certification
reported
the certification.
U. S. 1058
ance of the test
(2010).
controlling precedent: As
in line with
Our answer is
nature,
is testimonial
if
statement
rule,
an out-of-court
may
against
at trial
the accused
unless
it
not be introduced
is unavailable and the
who made the statement
the witness
prior opportunity
confront
witness.
accused has had a
State
explicitly overruled
Supreme Court
ruling,
In so
the New Mexico
Dedman,
Because New the tes- Mexico Caylor, timonial statement of witness, e., one i. enter into through person, evidence the in-court of a second judgment. e., Razatos, i. we reverse that court’s I The Sixth Amendment’s Clause Confrontation confers upon “[i]n prosecutions, the accused, all . criminal . . the right against ... be with the confronted witnesses him.” pathmarking Washington, In a 2004 decision, v. we Crawford (1980), Roberts, overruled Ohio v. 448 U. which S. 56 had interpreted the Confrontation to allow Clause admission of judicial absent witnesses’ testimonial on statements based reliability. Rejecting determination See 66. Rob ” “amorphous ‘reliability,’ erts’ notions of Crawford, S.,U. fidelity at 61, held that to the Confrontation Clause Crawford “[tjestimonial permitted admission of statements of wit only nesses from absent . trial.. where declarant is un only prior available, op and where the defendant has had a portunity Michigan to cross-examine,” id., at See v. Bryant, (2011)(“[F]or U. S. testimonial evidence admissible, to be the Sixth Amendment what the ‘demands required: unavailability common [of witness] law prior opportunity (quoting for cross-examination.’” Craw 68)). relying ford, S., 541 U. on Craw ford’s, rationale, refused to create a “forensic evidence” ex ception analyst’s this rule. 557 U. at 317-321.5 An prepared certification connection with criminal investi gation prosecution, held, “testimonial,” the Court
5The plain objection dissent makes application that its to the is less the Court’s docisiono in to this case Melendez-Diaz than to Crawford those pathmarking post, (criticizing decisions themselves. See at 678 “line of rejecting evidence”); post, cases” for “reliable Crawford 684 (deploring rejection [reliability-centered] regime “Crawford’s Roberts”). Ohio v. compass the Confrontation Clause. within therefore Id., at 321-324.6 that the ana- never asserted case instant
The State Caylor, unavail- lyst was signed Curtis certification, who Caylor only, placed The record showed able. supra, at 655.
unpaid reason. See for an leave undisclosed *11 opportunity Bullcoming to cross-examine an did have Nor weigh Caylor. therefore, Crawford Supreme heavily Bullcoming’s Mexico The New favor. report although recognizing that the SLD Court, however, purposes Clause, of the Confrontation was for testimonial adequate analyst Razatos substitute considered SLD appearance Caylor. why explain did not first Razatos’ We requirement. We next ad- meet the Clause Confrontation report argument ranks as that the SLD the dress State’s subject “[was] to not the and therefore “nontestimonial,” Respond- place. Brief for the Clause” in first Confrontation omitted). (capitalization 7ent
A surrogate testimony Supreme held The New Mexico adequate satisfy Clause in this case Confrontation be- to the gener- Caylor “simply resul[t] transcribed cause presenting gas chromatograph machine,” no in- ated independent judgment. terpretation exercising no Bullcoming’s ‘accuser,’” said, the court “true R 3d, analyst Caylor’s testing role was that machine, was the while Caylor’s certification, how- Id., at 9. of “mere scrivener.” a “primary purpose” have “testimonial,” a must To rank as statement potentially relevant later “establish[ing] prov[ing] past or events (2006). Washington, 547 U. S. prosecution.” Davis v. criminal Elaborating Bryant, purpose for which on at 358. See also in Melendez-Dias that busi report” created, we “testimonial observed ... absent confrontation public generally admissible ness and records “are entity's of an affaire for the administration —having been created because they proving fact establishing or some purpose not for the trial — S., at 324. not testimonial.” 557 U. are reported machine-generated ever, more than a number. See supra, at 653.
Caylor Bullcoming's certified he blood received sam- ple intact unbroken, with seal that he checked make report sample sure that the forensic number and number “correspond[ed],” performed Bullcoming’s and that he sample particular adhering precise protocol. test, to a App. by leaving represented, “[Re- He 62-65. further marks” section of blank, that no “circumstance integrity sample a£fect[ed] or condition . . . of the validity analysis.” rep- . . the. Id., 65. These relating past resentations, events and human actions machine-produced in raw, revealed are data, meet for cross-examination. potential Supreme Mexico' ramifications the New reasoning, flags.
Court's furthermore, raise red Most wit- testify nesses, all, after to their of factual observations condi- g., light green,” tions or events, e. “the “the hour was *12 may they spot, noon.” Such record, witnesses on the what Suppose objective police report observed. an a recorded Bullcoming’s posited counsel the address above the fact— gun. front a door of house or the a readout of radar See Brief for Petitioner 35. an Could officer other than the one gun present who the saw number on the house or the infor- long equipped mation court—so as that officer tes- tify any technology observing deployed about the officer police department’s operating procedures? standard As precedent plain, emphatically our makes the answer is “No.” (2006)(Confron- Washington, See Davis v. 547 U. 813, S. 826 may by having tation note-taking Clause be not “evaded (em- police [officer] testimony recite the .. . of declarant” deleted)); phasis Melendez-Diaz, at S., 557 U. 334 (Kennedy, (“The dissenting) J., Court made clear Davis that it will permit not the testimonial of one witness to enter statement second.”). through testimony into evidence aof the in-court
661 Supreme that stated the number Court Mexico New chromatograph gas for no registered machine called Cay independent judgment interpretation on exercise part. P. at 494-495, 3d, 226 8-9. We M., at 147 N. lor’s Caylor already explained certified to than more have any machine-generated supra, at In See 653. number. analyst’s reliability comparative anof testimonial event, the machine-produced data does over drawn from bar. This settled come the Sixth Amendment reliability]” “obviou[s] a testimonial that the Crawford dispense wiLh the Clause. statement does not Confrontation (Clause “commands, at not that S., 62; id., at 541 U. see reliability par in a reliable, be be assessed evidence but testing evidence] [the in the manner: crucible ticular cross-examination”). analysts
Accordingly, the who write reports prosecution must be made avail that the introduces they possess “the scientific acu able for confrontation even if veracity of Mother Teresa.” men Mme. Curie and 319-320, at n. B analysis Recognizing of the blood-alcohol that admission [by] qualified testimony depended ana “live, in-court lyst,” 10, New Mexico M., 3d, P. N. Supreme Razatos could substitute Court believed that expert Caylor “qualified witness with as because Razatos respect gas chromatograph machine and SLD’s to the laboratory procedures,” at 9. But 3d, P. sur give equipped rogate Razatos was of the kind convey Caylor or observed about could not what knew particular test e., i. concerned, his certification events *13 surrogate testing employed.7 process could he Nor such analysts analyot Caylor, with other question that in common We do test, given by SLD, likely particular num employed not recall a would procedure the standard followed of tests each conducts and ber
testimony expose any lapses certifying or on the ana- lies lyst's part.8 Significant knowledge here, Razatos had no unpaid why Caylor placed the reason been on had leave. Caylor Bullcoming’s With on the stand, counsel could have questions designed incompetence, asked to reveal whether dishonesty Caylor’s evasiveness, accounted for removal regard, from his workstation. Notable in this the State Caylor prosecu- never asserted that "unavailable”; conveyed only Caylor uncompensated tion that was on leave. any "independent did Nor the State assert that Razatos had opinion” concerning Bullcoming’s BAC. See Brief for Re- spondent light, Caylor’s 58, n. 15. In this live hardly typed formality,” post, could be "a hollow at 677. fundamentally, More as this stressed in Crawford, “[t]he suggest text of any the Sixth Amendment does not open-ended exceptions requirement from confrontation developed by to be the courts.” 54. 541 U. Nor is extrapolate it “the role of courts to from words [Confrontation Clause] to it, the values behind and then to (in guarantees they only enforce its to the extent serve views) underlying the courts’ those values.” Giles v. Cali- (2008) (plurality). fornia, Accordingly, 554 U. S. dispensing the Clause does not tolerate with confrontation simply questioning because the court that believes one wit- provides ness about another’s testimonial statements a fair enough opportunity for cross-examination. involving
A recent decision another Sixth Amendment right right to counsel —is instructive. In United —the Gonzalez-Lopez, (2006), States v. 548 U. S. Govern- do, tosting, Caylor’o Even testimony under oath would havo enabled Bull coming’s jury concerning counsel to mice questions Caylor’o pro before a fieiency, work, care he took his performing veracity. and his particular, In Bulleoming’s likely inquired counsel would have on erooD why Caylor examination had been placed unpaid leave. 8 Bullcoming’s trial, At acknowledged “you Rosatos don’t know un- you actually Iodo analysis conducts, observe the else someone whether they protocol followed every th[e] App. instance.” *14 denying a defendant illegitimately his argued that ment where Amendment the Sixth violate of choicedid not counsel demonstrably performance” did not “substitute counsel’s Court re- prejudice at 144-145. This Id., the defendant. enough,” “[T]rue argument. the jected the Government’s rights [the explained, purpose set forth “the Court but it Sixth] trial; a fair does to ensure Amendment is long rights disregarded so as the trial can follow that the be guaran- “particular If a at Id., fair.” is, whole, on the 145. proce- violated, no substitute is tee” of the Sixth Amendment showing “[n]o additional violation, can cure the dure ” ‘complete.’ prejudice required Id., is to make violation representation counsel does not sat- at If substitute opportunity isfy neither does the Sixth Amendment, confront substitute witness. Gaylor’s introduce cer-
In when Slate elected to short, Bullcoming right Caylor had the witness tification, became sensibly any precedent be read cannot confront. Our way. at Melendez-Diaz, S., other See (Kennedy, (Court’s holding dissenting) “the . . means . who J., certificate”). testify signed person must who I I I finally, turn, s contention that SLD s We the State analysis reports in charac- blood-alcohol are nontestimonial question Clause even arises ter, therefore no Confrontation argument, no room for that left in this case. Melendez-Diaz Supreme see 147 concluded, M., N. Mexico Court New supra, 656-657, we 3d, 7-8; conclusion 226 P. inescapable. find laboratory, police
In re- Melendez-Diaz, a state forensic bags) reported analyzed (plastic quest, seized evidence (the police laboratory’s analysis substance found to the cocaine). bags at 308. The “cer- 557 U. in the contained analysts analysis” prepared who tested tificates of held, were the evidence “incontrovertibly purpose affirmation[s] . . . for the made establishing proving proceeding. some fact” in a criminal omitted). (internal quotation Id., at 310 marks The same *15 purpose question served the certificate in here. by analyst
The State maintains that the affirmations made Caylor “inquisitorial,” not were Brief “adversarial” for Respondent they simply instead, 27-33; observations were “independent scientis[t]” “according of an made a non- to duty,” public argument ad id., versarial at That 32-33. fares no better than it here did in A Melendez-Diaz. document solely “evidentiary purpose,” for created Melendez-Diaz police investigation, of a clarified, made in aid ranks as testi (forensic reports S., monial. 557 U. at 311 for available use certifying analyst at trial are “testimonial statements” and Amendment”). purposes “‘witnes[s]’ is a of the Sixth Distinguishing Bullcoming’s Melendez-Diaz, case from analysts’ findings where the in were contained certificates notary public,” “sworn to a before id., 308, at the State em- phasizes report Bullcoming’s that the SLD “un- BAC was (“only Respondent post, sworn.” Brief for at 676 13; sworn present statement” here was that of “who was Razatos, testif[y]”). [did] Supreme recog- As the New Mexico “ dispositive’ nized, [an] [i]s The absence of oath in deter- mining if a statement is 147 M., testimonial.” N. at 52). (quoting P. 3d, at 8 S., Crawford, 541 at in Indeed, U. rejected any Crawford, this Court as untenable construction of the Confrontation Clause render that would inadmissible only parte leaving sworn ex affidavits, while admission of “perfectly but unsworn formal, Id., at statements OK.” 52- Reading “implausible” 53, n. 3. in manner, Clause right ibid., noted, the Court would make the confrontation easily Davis, erasable. 830-831, See n. S., 5; U. concurring part judgment 838 (Thomas, J., in in and dis- senting part). in laboratory respects, report
In all material in this case resembles those Melendez-Diaz. as in Here, Melendez- provided seized evidence to Diaz, a officer law-enforcement police laboratory required to assist investi- law a state (2004). analysts § gations, Like the 29-3-4 N. M. Stat. Ann. Caylor the evidence and tested analysis. concerning prepared his the result of a certificate Caylor’s App. certificates, cer- 62. Like the Melendez-Diaz signed Davis, 547 document, tificate is “formalized” in J.), “report,” (opinion Thomas, headed n. Noteworthy contains App. form well, as SLD magistrate legend referring municipal courts’ rules provide of certified blood-alcohol for the admission analyses. “report attending of blood alco
In the formalities sum, qualify Caylor’s adequate analysis” as are than hol more does absence of notarization sertions as testimonial. *16 gov Clause from Confrontation not remove his certification guided by Supreme Court, ernance. The Mexico New Caylor’s report correctly recognized that Melendez-Diaz, 147 statements,” of testimonial ‘Tell within the core class leading in this Court’s M., 3d, 7, 493, 226 N. at P. at described Melendez-Diaz, S., 557 U. at decisions: Confrontation Clause 541 at 51-52. S.,U. Davis, S., 830; Crawford, 547 at 310; IV unbending application urge The amici State and its evidence would im- forensic to Confrontation Clause argument, prosecution. pose This an burden on the undue largely repeats post, 683, at dissent, advanced in the also rejected in Melendez-Diaz. See refrain rehearsed requirement, we reit- S.,U. at 325-328. The constitutional “may disregarded] convenience,” at [be] ... our erate, not consequences, again we predictions dire at and the dubious, are see ibid. observe, requires emphasis, the labo- it bears law,
New Mexico ratory preserve samples, can retested other be which to 7.33.2.15(A)(4)-(6)(2010), § analysts, Admin. see N. M. Code http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmac/_title07/ available party questions compliance T07C033.htm, and neither SLD’s requirement. Retesting always op- with that “is almost [DWI] tion ... cases,” Brief for Public Defender Service (herein- for District of Columbia et as al. Amici Curiae Brief), option after PDS and the State here: had New any prob- Mexico could have avoided Confrontation Clause by asking sample, testify lem Razatos then to retest the to the results of his retest rather to the of a than results test he did not conduct or observe.
Notably, retesting New Mexico advocates anas effective preserve right means to a defendant’s confrontation “when [out-of-court] transcrip- statement is raw data or a mere public Respondent tion of raw data onto a record.” Brief for require 53-54. But the State would the defendant to initi- (defense retesting. post, Id., ate 55; “remains free . performed . . call and examine the technician who (“free test”); post, retesting” at 681 is available to defend- ants). prosecution, proof. however, bears the burden of (“[T]he 557 U. at 324 Confrontation imposes present prosecution Clause a burden on the its bring witnesses, not the defendant to those adverse wit- court.”). obligation propel nesses into Hence the retest- ing original analyst when State’s, unavailable is Taylor Illinois, defendant’s. See v. 484 U. S. (1988)(Confrontation requirements 410, n. apply Clause’s every “in case, whether or not the seeks to defendant rebut *17 own”). against present the case him or to case a of his procedures, long Furthermore, in notice-and-demand ef many jurisdictions, fect in can on reduce burdens forensic governing procedures typically laboratories. Statutes these hearsay reports “render . . . otherwise forensic admissible[,] specifically preserving right while a to defendant’s demand prosecution author/analyst report.” [the] that the call the of (observing PDS Brief 9; Melendez-Diaz, see U. at 326 S., “permit that notice-and-demand statutes the defendant to as (or silence) right sert forfeit his Confrontation Clause prosecution’s receiving to a intent use fo- of after notice the analyst’s report”). rensic moreover, in Crawford,
Even this Court’s decision before prosecutorial practice to call the forensic ana- it was common persuasive lyst testify. “to the bolster to Prosecutors did so [even] power [the State’s] the . . when defense case[,] . testify.” analyst preferred did not the would have Brief 8. PDS “actually cases” that “small fraction of...
We note also the (citing proceed to 557 U. at trial.” “nearly in and federal state estimate 95% of convictions plea”). guilty And, “when cases in are via courts obtained analysis go [do] to trial,” conducted which forensic has been [the] “regularly [stipulate] to the admission of ... defendants testify analysts analysis.” “[A]s a result, PDS Brief 20. only very percentage id., 21, for cases,” a small unlikely “[i]t on counsel will insist live testi- that defense is highlight mony merely rather will to than whose effect be analysis.” upon Melendez-Diaz, 557 doubt forensic cast S., at 328.9 [acknowl- Tellingly, jurisdictions “it is the in which testify job analysts edged] . in court. . about their .. . sky Brief 23. PDS State not fallen. results,” test has increase, from argues reporting 71% 2008 to otherwise, The dissent analysts’ testimony in 2010, subpoenas for New Mexico number of silent, however, Post, impaired-driving dissent cases. at 683. testify, e., analysts in i. subpoenaed fact the number of instances in which testimony. courtroom burden of figure reveal actual that would Health, Laboratory Moreover, Scientific Di Department of New Mexico's dissent, post, vision, conditions noted has attributed “chaotic” freeze, them, attrition, hiring factors, among state staff several testing, samples received for in the number of blood 15% increase Attorneys “wildly” District divergent responses by New Mexico Health, SLD, Department of as Melendez-Diaz. Brief New Mexico Attorneys’ offices, we District 2-5. Some Mexico Amicus Curiae New any to a blood connection “subpoen[a] every with informed, are undoubtedly inflates sample,” practice that an exorbitant subpoenas number issued. *18 municipal operational staffing laboratories “make and analysts’ appearance
decisions” to facilitate at trial. Ibid. analysts’ Prosecutors schedule trial dates to accommodate availability, liberally grant and trial courts continuances unexpected Id., when conflicts arise. at 24-25. In rare analyst longer employed in cases which the nois the labo- ratory prosecution at the time of “the trial, makes effort bring analyst Id., at And, ... court.” as is practice supra, in Mexico, 665-666, New see labora- ordinarily enabling samples, tories retain additional them to again necessary.10 run tests when
H» ^ judgment For stated, reasons of the New Mexico Supreme reversed, Court is and the case is remanded for proceedings opinion.11 further this inconsistent with
It is so ordered.
concurring
part.
in
Justice
Sotomayor,
agree
I
with the Court that the trial court erred
admit-
ting
(BAC)
report.
blood alcohol concentration
I write
separately
highlight why
first to
I
view
at issue
specifically
to be
“primary purpose”
because its
testimonial—
evidentiary
emphasize
second to
the limited reach of
—and
opinion.
the Court’s
refers,
The
selectively,
dissent
post,
experience
Angeles,
in
Los
683, but
experience
overlooks
Michigan.
State,
documented in
In that
post-Melendez-Diaz,
increase
in in-court
testimony
has
slight.
(in
been
Compare
analysts
2006,
provided
PDS Brief 21
tests)
only
for
0.7% of all
Michigan
Police,
with
State
Division,
Forensic Science
at http://www.miehigan.gov/msp/
available
(in
0,1607,7-123-1593_3800-15901 ,00.html
2010,
provided
analysts
testi
—
mony
tests).
approximately
1% of all
As
express
n.
we
no view
on whether
the Confrontation
Clause error
this case wais harmless.
Supreme
New Mexico
question,
reach
did not
see Brief for
Respondent 59-60,
opinion
nothing
impedes
harmless-error
inquiry on remand-
*19
I
A
Supreme
precedents,
Mexico
our
the New
Under
report in this
BAC
case
was correct to hold that the certified
¶ 18,
487,
147 N.
To if a is determine statement primary creating purpose of out-of-court whether it has “a Michigan Bryant, testimony.” v. 562 substitute for trial (2011). “primary purpose” of a 344, U. S. 358 When the trial,” ibid., “the statement is create a record for “not to admissibility [the] state is the concern of of statement Clause,” id,., of not evidence, federal rules the Confrontation at 359. question Court has faced
This
not the first time the
As
the Court ex
whether
scientific
is testimonial.
plains,
Massachusetts,
v.
ante,
663-664,
at
in Melendez-Diaz
(2009),
analysis,”
that “certificates of
we held
As we earlier this purpose making primary “[i]n standard determination, hearsay... S., at 562 U. 358-359.1 relevant.” rules of will be explained applied report, Melendez-Diaz to a As scientific characterization, Bryant reliability, deemed Contrary to the dissent’s “relevant,” rules, 562 U. hearsay to be in the as reflected J.). evidence, Kennedy, of The rules “essential,” post, (opinion at 678 police reliability; Clause, designed primarily are not the Confrontation state is to whether Clause determine purpose Confrontation require confrontation. ments axe and therefore testimonial pursuant “[documents to Federal Rule of Evidence 803, kept regular may ordinarily in the course be ad business despite hearsay except mitted trial status,” their “if regularly activity production conducted business is the of ev (citing idence for use at trial.” 557 S.,U. Fed. Rule 803(6)). hearsay Evid. In that circumstance, rules bar Relatedly, admission of even business records. the Con public frontation Clause context, business and records “are generally admissible absent confrontation . .. because—hav ing entity’s been created for the of an administration affairs purpose establishing proving and not for the some fact *20 they at are Melendez-Diaz, not testimonial.” 557 trial - pur S.,U. at 324. We concluded, therefore, that because the pose analysis they of the certificates of at trial, was use were properly public admissible as business or records under hearsay they rules, id., 321-322, at nor were admissible hearsay under the Clause, Confrontation at id., 324. The recognition evidentiary rule’s purpose the certificates’ of thus confirmed our decision that the certificates were testi primary purpose analysis required by monial under the (explaining Confrontation Clause. at id., See 311 that under just purpose pur Massachusetts law not but the “sole evidence). pose provide” of the affidavits towas Similarly, case, in this for the reasons the Court sets forth report Caylor’s clearly BAC it certification on have “primary purpose creating a of an out-of-court substitute for testimony.” Bryant, trial 562 S., at 358. The Court U. also explains why report materially distinguish- the BAC is not able from the we certificates held in testimonial Melendez- Diaz. S., See 557 U. at 310-311.2 2 say, is not however, every person This to on report noted the BAC testify. must we explained As it is not the case “that anyone testimony may whose establishing be relevant of chain cus tody, authenticity of sample, accuracy testing device, or of the must appear person part prosecution’s as .... up case It is to the
671 suggests further formality the certification inherent in The “[formality Although purpose. is not the evidentiary its purpose inquiry,” a state primary of our sole touchstone light formality informality shed whether can or ment's primary purpose of use at trial. particular statement has agree Bryant, with the Court’s assess S., I 562 U. at 366.3 statement, here is a formal at issue that the certificate ment despite Ante, 664; at Craw of notarization. absence (“[T]he [an] [is] of oath not dis absence S., 541 U. ford, positive”). formality fact that the from the ana derives “certify” lyst sign to both the result is asked to his name requires A “certification” the statements on the form. accompanying “[t]o are statements true. one that the attest” 2009) (definition (9th Dictionary ed. Black’s Law (defining “[t]o “certify”); “attest” as bear see also at 147 genuine; testify,” “[t]o or au affirm true be witness; witness”). by signing as a thenticate compelled I to conclude that the has sum,
In am purpose creating “primary substitute for an out-of-court custody are as chain so crucial prosecution steps to decide what in the . n. 1. require .. evidence statement, we do not the relia By looking “trea[t] of a formality to the Post, bility J., as to exclude it.” (Kennedy, evidence a reason *21 formality signal reliability, could dissenting). Although in some instances that, under our Confrontation appreciate argument the dissent’s fails to pur an indicator of testimonial precedents, formality primarily Clause is the testimonial nature of a pose. Formality is not the sole indicator Washington, See Davis v. easily statement it evaded. because is too concurring judgment part in (2006) S. 813, (Thomas, J., U. 547 838 formality long a hallmark dissenting has been part). Nonetheless tho formality suggests that statement of testimonial statements because explained Bryant, informality, for is intended use at trial. As we necessarily . . lack of testimonial in hand, not . other “does indicate S., recognizes the at 366. itself relevance of tent.” dissent U. 562 inquiry formality it formality to the testimonial *22 limited, connection to scientific test at issue. Razatos played pro- that he no role in conceded on cross-examination any portion ducing report not observe BAC and did App. Caylor’s testing. 58. The court Curtis conduct recognized total lack of connection below also Razatos’ R It M., 492, 3d, would test at issue. 147 N. example, supervisor a who observed if, a different case for be analyst conducting a about the results or a an testified test report what need not address de- about such results. We gree because here had is sufficient Razatos involvement report. in the relevant test and no involvement whatsoever expert an witness was Third, is not a case in which this underlying opinion independent for about testimo- asked his reports themselves admitted into evi- nial that were not (explaining that facts or dence. See Fed. Rule Evid. experts type upon in the field would reason- data of a which ably rely forming opinion not be admissible in need an expert’s opinion on the facts data for based order admitted). notes, ante, the State be As the Court independent, not assert that Razatos offered ex- does Bullcoming’s pert opinion alcohol blood concentration. about reading explains, “[a]side from a Rather, the State exhibit, as an Razatos offered no that was introduced Mr. opinion content. . Brief about Petitioner’s blood alcohol ..” omitted). (citation Respondent Here the State n. Caylor’s report, including testimonial state- offered the BAC question a if face different ments, into evidence. We would constitutionality allowing an ex- asked to determine the pert if statements witness to testimonial discuss others’ admitted as were not themselves testimonial statements evidence.
Finally, the State introduced in which not a case printout only machine-generated as from results, such Caylor’s gas chromatograph. introduced here The State transcription of a blood alco- his statements, which included gas copied chroma- apparently from concentration, hol along about the tograph printout, statements other with *23 674
procedures handling sample. ante, at used in the blood See (“I certify App. procedures 659-660; 62 I followed report, on set out the reverse of this and statements correct”). this whether, block are we not decide as Thus, do Supreme suggests, M., Mexico 147 N. at 496, New Court (assuming 3d, a10, P. could an State introduce ade- foundation) quate custody generated chain of raw data conjunction expert machine with the wit- Reply ness. See Brief for Petitioner n. 5. present, opinion
This case does not and thus Court's any does not address, of these factual scenarios.
[*] [*] [*] primary purpose As in Melendez-Diaz, the of the BAC re- port clearly is to as It therefore serve evidence. tes- allowing timonial, and the trial court erred in the State testimony. to introduce it into via evidence I Razatos’ respectfully concur.
Justice Kennedy, with Justice, whom The Chief Breyer, Justice and Justice Alito join, dissenting. The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause binds the States and the National Texas, Government. Pointer v. (1965). ago, arising U. S. 400, 403 Two Terms ain case from prosecution, interpreted a state criminal the Court laboratory report sought to Clause mandate exclusion authority report’s be introduced based of that own performed yielding sworn statement that a test been had the results as shown. Massachusetts, Melendez-Diaz v. (2009). opinion S. The Court’s in that case held the present inadmissible because no one was trial to testify to its contents. agrees reasoning
Whether or not one with the and the re- today sult in Melendez-Diaz, the Court the new takes misstep extending holding serious to instances like knowledgeable representative one. aHere of the labo- proc explain testify the lab’s ratory present report; he was not because but of the esses the details and transcribed part the form who filled out printout, the a machine test onto it the result from principal objec Some a confrontation violation. finds underlying theory out have been set ear tions to Court’s repeated id., at 330-3B2 here. See lier and need be dissenting). applicable to *24 reasons, Additional J., (Kennedy, ruling in this the new the of that doctrine and to extension explained respectful support of this dissent. are now in case,
I today, held that the Confronta- the had not Before findings scientific when em- tion Clause bars of admission laboratory findings, ployee testing the authenticates practices, laboratory’s and and is testifies to the methods testimony replacing live from at trial. Far cross-examined “systematic” “extrajudicial” Davis examinations, v. with and (2006)(Thomas, Washington, J., con- 813, 835, 547 836 U. S. (emphasis dissenting part) curring judgment part in and omitted), procedures quotation marks these deleted; internal fully with the Confrontation Clause and with are consistent ensuring principles that criminal trials well-established requirements with of fairness are conducted in full accord guarantee. They reliability confrontation and with the proceedings.” Id., at 837. do not “resemble Marian procedures here, now invalidated the but followed “solemnity” testimony the rather than Court, make live laboratory’s primary the scien- document the credit reason the Id., tific Unlike where results. solely laboratory’s findings jury based was asked credit plainly “quite 557 affidavits,” on documents that were (internal concurring) quotation marks J., (Thomas, omitted), legend heading, signature, on the docu- here report for a elements ment were routine authentication testimony explained sub- in-court be assessed and would ject only fall cross-examination. The sworn statement at present issue was that of the witness was who who testified. certifying analyst’s
The record reveals role here greater anyone was no than that of in the chain of else cus- tody. App. (laboratory employee’s agreeing prepared placed that “once the material is the ma- you any particular expertise chine, results”). don’t need to record the
The information contained in the process participants’ comprising multiple result of scientific evidentiary significance. acts, each with its own These acts receipt sample laboratory; recording included at the its storing receipt; placing sample testing it; into the device; transposing printout -results the test onto the report; and review of at 48-56; results. See see also Department Brief for New Mexico of Health, Scientific Labo- (hereinafter ratory Division, as Amicus Curiae New Mex- Brief) (“Each Laboratory sample ico Scientific blood has original testing by... many analysts ”); seve[n] work as as ... App. (indicating laboratory that this case involved three *25 analysts respectively, analyzed, who, received, and reviewed analysis sample); of the Brief for cf. State of Indiana et al. as Virginia, Amici in Curiae Briscoe v. 2009, O. T. No. 07- p. analysis (explaining that can DNA involve the up analysts). combined efforts of to 40 laboratory In the New Mexico scientific where the blood sample processed, analyses involving are run batches samples. sample computer- 40-60 Each a is identified generated number not that is linked back to the file con- taining person sample the name of the from whom the came testing completed. until after all is See New Mexico Scien- Laboratory analysis mechanically per- tific Brief The 26. is gas may operate chromatograph, formed the which in —as laboratory employees this case—after all the leave for the day. reported id., at it See 17. And the result, whatever is law both enforcement and defense. See at 36. the laboratory testing representative whom the The prosecution named scientific Mr. Ra called was a “help[ed] overseeing ad the He testified that he zatos. throughout programs the State,” and of these ministration concerning qualified questions each of he was to answer govern steps. App. that has held the The Court these 49. “everyone produce hands not at trial who laid need ment supra, Here, n. 1. the evidence,” Melendez-Diaz, the high opportunity cross-examination defense used laboratory employees. light the at trial of certain absence attorney, by Bullcoming’s questioning Razatos ac Under report; knowledged appear on did not that his name analysis, sample, perform the or com he did not receive the plete and he did not know the reason review; weighing argu App. personnel After some decisions. concerning admissions, these ments from defense counsel considering who knew the Razatos, after jury laboratory’s protocols processes, the found no rea guilt. sonable doubt as to the defendant’s requiring the State call circumstances, In these who form and recorded results technician filled out a formality. remains free to test is The defense a hollow may any challenge It call and ex- and all forensic evidence. may performed test. it call who And amine technician always expert explain that tests are other witnesses to might have made a mistake. or that the technician reliable jury it test, to credit the as did can then whether decide progress States, furthermore, can assess here. The adopt testing and rules to enact or statutes scientific Rejecting only ensure that reliable evidence admitted. concept arguments that reliabil- these and the commonsense today ity legitimate takes different is a concern, the *26 in a central role course. It once more assumes for itself thereby extending evidentiary mandating and rules, detailed disrupt potential crimi- confirming to “vast Melendez-Diaz’s dissenting). procedures.” J., S., at 331 nal 557 U. (Kennedy, The protections II in the Clause, Confrontation indeed general, designed the Sixth in Amendment are to ensure a fair trial with reliable But evidence. v. Wash Crawford ington, (2004), 541 U. 36 S. line cases has treated the relia bility of Id., evidence as a it. reason exclude at 61-62. Today, example, report the Court bars admission of lab signed “is because it Ante, formalized in a document.” at (internal omitted). quotation marks The Court’s uncon premise ventional acting and unstated is that the State — reliability ensure statement’s the statement —makes likely more formal and therefore less to be admitted. Park, Regent Is Confrontation Bottom Line? 19 U. L. Rev. 459, (2007). reliability so, That is insists, Court because does animate Ante, the Confrontation at Clause. 661; supra, supra, Melendez-Diaz, at at 317-318; 61- Crawford, just 62. Yet that, Term ruled in another con part reliability context, frontation was an essential inquiry. Michigan Bryant, constitutional See v. 562 U. S. (2011). 344, 358-359, 361-362 reliability, principles
Like in other have weaved and out Solemnity jurisprudence. has sometimes Crawford dispositive, been see 557 U. at S., 310-311; concurring), id., at 329-330 (Thomas, J., and sometimes not, see concurring Davis, S., 834-837, 547 U. J., (Thomas, judgment part dissenting part). So, too, with proving elusive distinction between utterances aimed past keep help police events, and those calculated peace. Compare supra, Bryant, Davis, 562 U. dissenting). 371-376, with at 384-387 (Scalia, J., It is not even clear which could witnesses’ ren- approach. der a scientific admissible under the Court’s “analysts’ Melendez-Diaz stated an inflexible rule: Where af- fidavits” included defendants were statements,” “testimonial analysts” “entitled to be confronted with the themselves.
679 omitted). (internal quotation Now, marks atS., 557 U. 311 clear than it first is either less reveals, this rule the Court A is admissi- appeared followed. or too strict to be competent today’s opinion if a “live witness states, ble, report” testify in made of the statements to the truth just appears. include not at witnesses Ante, 651. Such per- any certifying analyst, . . who . but also “scientist reported formed] observe[d] in the certification.” test Ante, at equal
Today’s majority in shares to is committed holding principles applying the of in Craw- common set of (opinion Compare supra the Court Davis, ford. J.), concurring judg- in J., id., at 834 with Scalia, (Thomas, Bryant, dissenting part); supra part in and ment in J.), (opinion by Sotomayor, id., with at 378 for the Court concurring judgment), id., J., 379 at J., (Scalia, (Thomas, dissenting); dissenting), J., at (Ginsburg, Court), p. p. ante, (opinion with ante, (SOTO- concurring). in the wake of the Court Craw- J., That MAYOR, fashioning a clear vision has such trouble had ford every.judge meaning unsettling; binds case’s for Crawford every every and federal court local, state, trial in criminal prior leave trial decisions in the This Nation. Court’s judges “guess will distill rules what future supra, sparse text,” from the constitutional struggle apply dissenting), or to J., (Kennedy, subjective,” “highly entirely “amorphous, context- if not Bry- “open-ended balancing,” involving dependent inquiry” (internal dissenting) quotation supra, ant, J., at 393 (Scalia, omitted) majori- (listing under the relevant marks 11 factors ty’s approach). approach persistent ambiguities are Court’s applications.
symptomatic to sensible amenable rule not multiple participants involving illustrate Procedures opin- problem. insisted its the Court In Melendez-Diaz require everyone custody ion did not in the chain to tes- tify qualified but then that “what is introduced must ... be n. 1; ante, introduced live.” 557 U. n. 2. This could mean that a evidence statement that *28 custody remained in law-enforcement is admissible if the appears po- statement’s maker so, in court. If an intern at headquarters log, lice could review the evidence declare that custody testify. chain of was retained, so The rule and could also be that the intern’s statement —which draws state- log every ments in the evidence unless inadmissible offi- —is signed log appears applied cer who if rule, at trial. That admissibility case, to this have would of conditioned the re- port testimony on the of three or more identified witnesses. App. See 62. In instances, other even or 40 witnesses required. supra, could be See has 676. The court thus— fidelity in its into Melendez-Diaz—boxed itself choiceof evils: proforma render the Confrontation Clause construe it so its dictates are unworkable.
I I I compel today’s itself does not conclusion. It is Crawford true, as confirmed, that the Confrontation Clause Crawford part government replicating seeks in to bar the from trial procedures public Bryant, of outside at S., 50; view. See 541 U. pra, explained at 358-359. that the basic su Crawford purpose of the Clause towas sort address the of abuses ex emplified at the Raleigh. notorious treason trial Walter of Sir operates at 51. On this view the Clause to bar through admission of out-of-court statements obtained for interrogation preparation danger mal for trial. The may that innocent defendants be on the convicted basis by unreliable, untested statements who those observed—or preparation claimed to have for or commission observed— might And, crime. course, those not have statements spoken might been uttered at all or—even if not have — been true. provides sort, however, of that A rule that bars impose necessity a constitutional bar on neither cause nor impartial reports like the instant one, lab the admission of prepared experienced reports technicians laboratories , protocols. professional and scientific In that follow norms right to call witnesses addition to the his constitutional already pro- defense, in this case own the defendant prosecutorial potential such abuse as checks on tected retesting issuance re- defendants; for result-blind free ports; testing by processes agency; independent routine targeted opportunities performed en masse, which reduce profes- pursuant operating bias; labs scientific Respondent oversight. Brief for sional See norms Laboratory Brief 14-15, 41, 54; Mexico New Scientific conducting preventing from ex In addition to the State regime parte rejection of the of Ohio v. trials, Crawford’s *29 (1980), underlying Roberts, to have two seemed 448 U. S. jurisprudential objectives. to delink intricacies One was hearsay and the other mandate; of law from a constitutional legislatures courts and was to allow the their own States, explore develop supervision, to and without and this Court’s evidentiary pertaining specific to sensible, rules admissi- bility to wel- of These results were be certain statements. experience day-to-day and comed, lacks the for this Court familiarity process well to it to assume the suit with trial Yet far from for rules evidence. role national tribunal rejects pursuing objectives, them in favor of the Court these opposites. their hearsay freeing reliance doc- from
Instead of the Clause hearsay with trines, now linked Clause the Court has rigid, and least refined formula- in their most earliest, rules Remaking g., e. Confrontation Clause See, Mosteller, tions. Challenge Hearsay of Child Sexual and Doctrine Under 739-740, 742, Ill. L. Rev. Prosecutions, 1993 U. Abuse Law, Evidence Gallanis, The of Modern 744-746; Rise (1999). 514-515, 533-537 In 499, 502-503, Rev. Iowa L. one, cases like Melendez-Diaz and this the Court has tied 18th-century hearsay to Confrontation Clause rules un- by principles tending leavened those rules more sen- make Sklansky, Hearsay’s sible. Hurrah, Last 2009 S. Ct. Rev. 5-6, 36. As a taken result, Court has the Clause far beyond important application, its most which is to forbid parte, by ex sworn, out-of-court unconfronted statements and ap- available witnesses who observed the crime and do not pear at trial. having just
Second, the are not States at risk of some of hearsay They their rules reviewed often Court. are contributing foreclosed now from to the formulation and en- actment rules that make trials fairer more reliable. allowing For instance, recent state laws admission of well- supported reports documented and of abuse women give way, whose abusers later them must murdered unless specificpurpose foreclosing abuser murdered with the testimony. (2008); Giles v. 554 U. California, S. Sklansky, supra, at 14-15. those Whether statutes could provide reliability safeguards sufficient indicia of and other comply with the as it should un- Confrontation Clause be point open question. derstood be is, to an sure, is that development participate the States cannot now in the of this part difficult of the law. systemic
In ongoing, short, there is continued, dis- placement of the federal dislocation struc- States ture. Cf. 557 U. 307-309, 327-329. If persists applying this Court wooden formalism in order *30 prosecution testimony bar reliable offered the — thought proper many for decades in state and federal courts devising processes committed to fair trial the States —then might necessary appropriate find it to enact statutes to regime. they accommodate this If intrusive federal new, do, those rules could remain on books for decades, state statute subsequent even if decisions of were to better Court implement objectives the This underscores Crawford. consequences disruptive, long-term deci- structural today. announces like the one the Court sions proper appropriate may to it is States also decide give require to defense counsel advance enact statutes object they going a to if are introduction notice to prepared presence the technician who without the in court of upon today's opinion of that sort as relies laws Indeed, it. causing. palliative disruption Ante, at 666-667 it is to the opinion). (plurality quite to unrealistic, however, think It is away defense the incentives to that this will take from the analyst present. certifying having There is in insist on good ordinary proceeds to trial no reason case that for right of confrontation as the defense counsel to waive interprets now it. Today’s opinion repeats an assertion from Melendez-Diaz “impose an undue burden on the that its decision will not ” (plurality opinion). prosecution. But Ante, at 665 evidence g., already contrary begun to e. Brief mount. See, has (explaining Amici Curiae 7 for State et al. as California Angeles Depart toxicologists Police that the 10 the Los appearances during spent court ment 782 hours at 261 Attorneys 1-year period); District Asso Brief for National (observing that each et ciation al. as Amici Curiae California, per processes analyst 3,220 cases blood-alcohol empirical rigorous year average). studies and more New detailing effects of Melendez-Diaz further the unfortunate forthcoming. are sure to be experience exemplifies
In Mexico’s meantime, New subpoenas requiring problems 2008 to ahead. Prom analysts testify impaired-driving cases New Mexico every workday. 9 New Mexico 71%, 1,600 rose 8—or Laboratory that is Nation’s Brief In State Scientific analysts, employs just largest 10 total fifth area and recently received id., cases each blood-alcohol analysts subpoenas per year, now must at 33. working days. great The result travel most distances on *31 laboratory’s has in been, words, Id., “chaotic.” at 5. objection And if the defense raises an and the is tied up proceeding; in leave; another court or absent; or or delayed longer longer employed; in or transit; ill; no or no living, gets good the defense As result, windfall. de- attorneys object ever-greater fense will numbers to a prosecution laboratory inability produce failure or to ana- lysts subpoenas at trial. The concomitant increases in will impede laboratory’s ability keep pace further to state obligations. with its state Scarce resources could be com- urgent justice system. mitted to other needs the criminal
[*] [*] # years remembering Seven after its it bears initiation, approach preordained. This Court’s Crawford missteps produced interpretation have of the word “wit meaning ness” at odds with its in the elsewhere Constitution, including elsewhere in the Amendment, Sixth Amar, see Principles, Sixth Amendment First L. 84 Geo. J. (1996),
691-696 and at odds with the sound administration of justice. ground. place It is to proper time return to A solid begin that return is decline to extend Melendez-Diaz to bar evidentiary the reliable, commonsense framework the sought State follow this case. when notes Post, problematic Raleigh’s trial. in Sir Walter unconfronted statements at 672 testimony,” Bryant, trial U. which it S., 358, renders testimonial. B holding report After that the testimonial, was the New Supreme Mexico nevertheless held its admission permissible was under the Confrontation Clause for two rea Caylor scrivener,” sons: because was a “mere and because workings gas Razatos could be cross-examined on the chromatograph laboratory procedures. 147 N. atM., convincingly 226 R 494-496, 3d, at 8-10. The Court ex why plains those rationales Ante, are incorrect. at 659-663. prece Therefore, the New court Mexico contravened our holding report dents in was admissible via Ra testimony. zatos’ II Although materially indistinguishable this case is from the highlight we facts considered in I Melendez-Diaz, some of present. the factual circumstances that this case does not suggested First, a ease in which the State an purpose, primary alternative pur- much less alternative pose, report. example, for the BAC For the State has not necessary provide Bullcoming that the claimed Bryant, with medical S., treatment. 362, See U. n. 9 (listing Diagnosis Purposes “Statements for of Medical 803(4) Treatment” under Federal Rule Evidence as an ex- ample “by of statements that are made nature, their purpose prosecution”); other than in a use (“[M]edical reports n. created for treat- purposes ment . . . would not be testimonial under our deci- today”); (2008) sion (“[Statements Giles v. 554 U. S. California, physicians receiving in the course of treat- rules”). only by hearsay ment would be excluded, all, if at person testifying Second, this is anot case in which the ais supervisor, personal, reviewer, or someone else with a albeit