Move to Strike My Last Post!
In a recent post, I suggested that by establishing a good foundation, the State may be able to overcome a confrontation clause objection to its use a substitute analyst in […]
May 14, 2010
Foundation for a Substitute Analyst’s Opinion after Melendez-Diaz
As summarized in Jeff’s recent blog post, in State v. Brennan, the North Carolina Court of Appeals applied Locklear and Mobley and held that the defendant’s confrontation clause rights were […]
May 4, 2010
State v. Brennan: Substitute Analysts, Again
The court of appeals released a new batch of opinions today. I may post on others eventually, but the one that jumped out at me immediately is State v. Brennan. […]
January 6, 2010
North Carolina’s Notice and Demand Statute for Chemical Analyses in Drug Cases Is Constitutional
In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachussetts, the United States Supreme Court held that forensic laboratory reports—such as those identifying a substance as a controlled substance—are testimonial and subject to the new Crawford […]
November 4, 2009
State v. Mobley: Green Light to the Use of Substitute Analysts
In previous posts [editor’s note: her prior posts are here and here] I have written about the developing North Carolina law on the use of substitute analysts after Melendez-Diaz. In […]
October 22, 2009
Galindo and “Substitute Analysts” After Melendez-Diaz
On October 20, 2009, the North Carolina Court of Appeals decided State v. Galindo, holding that a Crawford violation occurred when the State’s expert gave an opinion, in a drug […]
September 9, 2009
Melendez-Diaz “Fix”
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachussetts, as most readers of this blog know, is the United States Supreme Court’s latest pronouncement on the Confrontation Clause. Generally, it holds that forensic laboratory reports — […]
September 1, 2009
State v. Locklear and the Admissibility of Forensic Reports
Last Friday, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided State v. Locklear, holding, in part, that a Crawford violation occurred when the trial court admitted opinion testimony regarding a victim’s cause […]
August 26, 2009
Melendez-Diaz and Limited Privileges
If a 0.15 alcohol concentration is not admitted at trial or sentencing, does it count for limited privilege purposes? I discussed in an earlier post circumstances in which the Confrontation […]
July 27, 2009
Retroactivity of Melendez-Diaz (Again)
In my last post on this topic, I addressed the “new rule” prong of Teague retroactivity analysis as it applies to Melendez-Diaz. I ended that post by noting that another […]
Subscribe
Categories
Blog Authors
- Maggie Bailey (3)
- Brittany Bromell (88)
- Emily Coward (8)
- Alexander Cowell (3)
- Melanie Crenshaw (2)
- Michael Crowell (7)
- Shea Denning (636)
- Sara DePasquale (9)
- Phil Dixon (198)
- James Drennan (1)
- Belal Elrahal (31)
- Whitney Fairbanks (1)
- Bob Farb (46)
- Rebecca Fisher-Gabbard (2)
- Jacquelyn Greene (78)
- Alyson Grine (16)
- Timothy Heinle (7)
- Jonathan Holbrook (56)
- Joseph L. Hyde (52)
- Kirsten Leloudis (1)
- Caitlin Little (1)
- Ian Mance (3)
- Jamie Markham (558)
- Chris McLaughlin (1)
- Kristi Nickodem (4)
- Alex Phipps (86)
- M. Jeanette Pitts (2)
- LaToya Powell (7)
- Ethan Rex (3)
- John Rubin (96)
- Jessica Smith (253)
- Meredith Smith (5)
- Daniel Spiegel (42)
- Tom Thornburg (6)
- Hannah Turner (11)
- Christopher Tyner (262)
- Jeff Welty (1203)