Bullcoming v. New Mexico (09-10876)

argument 09-10876

Bullcoming v. New Mexico

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What does the Confrontation Clause require for lab analyst testimony?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case zero nine one oh eight seven six, Vulcoming versus New Mexico. Mr Fisher.

John Fisher 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The text, purpose, and history of the confrontation clause make it clear that the prosecution cannot introduce one person's testimonial statements through the in court testimony of someone else. Thus, having held in Melinda's Diaz that lab analysts' statements in a forensic lab report are testimonial, this is an easy case. The state violated the confrontation clause by introducing lab analyst Curtis Kayler's statements in a forensic lab report without putting him on the stand. The New Mexico Supreme Court resisted this analysis straightforward as it is, on the ground that Mr uh Bulcoming, as the defendant, had the opportunity to cross examine a substitute or a surrogate witness, Mr Rosadis.

John Fisher 0:53

Um but a surrogate witness procedure violates all four components of the right to confrontation. It quite obviously violates the defendant's right to have the witness testify in his presence, in the presence of the jury, so the jury can observe it and under oath, as happened in the street.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:11

Do you mean it necessarily must be in the courtroom or would it w a video conferencing setup be Permissible. So that the technician or the analyst could testify from the lab rather but it would be screened in the in the courthouse.

John Fisher 1:29

Well the default rule under the confrontation clause is in presence in the court Now in Maryland against Craig, this court held in a child witness setting, of course, very different than this case, that closed circuit TV would be permissible. Uh and I believe, you know, in a future case, if a if the state perhaps made some sort of showing the lab analyst uh couldn't come to court for some reason, and certainly if the defendant stipulated, and maybe even if the defendant didn't stipulate, the court could accommodate

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:59

But uh let's suppose defendant doesn't stipulate. Is this adequate to meet the confrontation clause?

John Fisher 2:07

I don't think it would be adequate, Justice Ginsburg, with at least some absent at least some showing of unavailability of the witness or imp uh making the witness unable to come to court. Now Now there is an amicus brief in the case, I believe, that suggests some flexibility that trial judges might employ in in in accommodating lab analyst schedules.

Antonin Scalia 2:28

What about these witnesses? What about uh Uh not requiring uh the officer who uh who uh took the confession or or who witnessed uh the alleged crime. Uh Uh not requiring him to appear because he is busy. Well that's never been the rule.

John Fisher 2:50

That's never been the rule, Justice Scalia, and I don't think there would be a lot of people. Why is

Antonin Scalia 2:53

why is a lab technician different?

John Fisher 2:55

I d I don't think I don't think one is, and you don't have to reach that in this case because the State never attempted to make any showing that Mr. Kalar was unavailable for any reason. Commissioner,

John G. Roberts 3:04

what if you had Two people doing this procedure. They're sitting at you know chairs right next to each other. The one you know takes the the blood samples from the vials, puts them in another vial, and puts the aluminum stuff on and crimps it. The other one then takes the vials and put it s in in the machine and and runs it. Do you have to have both of them testify?

John Fisher 3:23

Only if the state wants to present statements from them both. No, they

John G. Roberts 3:27

want to present the results of the blood analysis. Numbers the machine spits out.

John Fisher 3:33

I think in that scenario, if both people were there for the whole thing, the State could have either one of them testify. Uh what the State couldn't do, this is the rule.

John G. Roberts 3:42

Even though one didn't do it, even though the question is going to be, did you put the aluminum on and crimp it? And the answer is going to be no, Joe did it. He sits right there.

John Fisher 3:50

The confrontation clause is a purely procedural right.

John G. Roberts 3:53

I'm sorry, that's right.

John Fisher 3:56

They do not have to. The c the confrontation clause is a purely procedural right. It all depends on what whose statements the state wants to introduce. So if the state is satisfied to prove its case by having somebody testify saying, I watched the thing go into the machine and I watched this result come out and I