A UNC School of Government Blog
In a post here, I wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011), holding that substitute analyst testimony in an impaired driving case violated Crawford. Bullcoming was no great surprise in light of the Court’s prior decision in Melendez-Diaz. However, less than one week after the … Read more
On June 23rd, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bullcoming v. New Mexico. As anticipated, the case turned out to be a straightforward application of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009) (forensic laboratory reports are testimonial; absent a stipulation, the prosecution may not introduce such a report without a live witness … Read more
In my first two posts, I explored the Bryant opinions. Today I’ll discuss what the case means for confrontation clause analysis going forward. 1. Although Crawford is intact, the Court may be creeping back towards the old Ohio v. Roberts reliability test. Slip op. at 14; id. at 15 n.9; Op. of Scalia, J. dissenting … Read more
In my last post, I looked at the majority opinion in Bryant. Today, I’ll discuss the other opinions, focusing on Scalia’s dissent. In my final post on this issue, I’ll wrap up with a discussion of what the case means for evolving confrontation clause law. As noted in my last post, Justice Sotomayor wrote the … Read more
On February 28, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided Michigan v. Bryant, its latest Crawford case. In an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that a homicide victim’s statements to responding officers were non-testimonial. In this post, I will explore the majority opinion. In my next post, I will summarize the other … Read more
In my first post on this topic, I set the stage for a discussion about the constitutionality of remote two-way testimony. In my second post, I explored the legal authority on that issue. In this final post, I will introduce two procedures might allow the State to achieve some of the benefits of remote testimony, … Read more
In my last post, I set the stage for a discussion about the constitutionality of remote two-way testimony. In this post I will explore the authority bearing on that question. Guidance from the United States Supreme Court The question whether remote two-way testimony satisfies the confrontation clause has not been resolved in a … Read more
Earlier posts (here, here, and here) discuss the statutory and constitutional requirements for obtaining a sample of a defendant’s blood for analysis in an implied-consent case. This post likewise addresses blood draws in such cases but addresses two narrower issues. First, must the State establish that the blood was drawn by a qualified person before … Read more
Along with the published cases released by the N.C. Court of Appeals on August 3, 2010, was an unpublished case of note. In State v. Davis, __ N.C. App. __ (Aug. 3, 2010), the court ordered a new trial after finding that the trial judge erred by admitting into evidence an autopsy report prepared by … Read more
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, interest has been growing in the use of two-way video testimony as a method to satisfy the confrontation clause when a witness cannot be present at trial. As readers of this blog know, Crawford held that under the sixth amendment’s confrontation clause, testimonial statements by … Read more