Bullcoming v. New Mexico: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Holding= |
|Holding= |
||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''Bullcoming v. New Mexico''''' is a significant Confrontation Clause case decided by the [[United States Supreme Court]]. |
'''''Bullcoming v. New Mexico''''' is a significant Confrontation Clause case decided by the [[United States Supreme Court]]. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court consdiered the issue whether a defendant's [[Confrontation Clause]] rights extent to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause. |
||
The case follows a line of decisions, including ''[[Crawford v. Washington]]'' (2004) and ''[[Davis v. Washington]]'' (2006), that altered the Court's interpretation of the Confrontation Clause guarantee and clarified its application only to "testimonial" statements. |
The case follows a line of decisions, including ''[[Crawford v. Washington]]'' (2004) and ''[[Davis v. Washington]]'' (2006), that altered the Court's interpretation of the Confrontation Clause guarantee and clarified its application only to "testimonial" statements. |
||
On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court consdiered the issue whether a defendant's [[Confrontation Clause]] rights extent to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause. |
|||
==Issue== |
==Issue== |
||
Revision as of 15:33, 26 June 2011
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
| Bullcoming v. New Mexico | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 2, 2011 Decided : pending, | |
| Full case name | Donald Bullcoming v. State of New Mexico |
Bullcoming v. New Mexico is a significant Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court consdiered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extent to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause.
The case follows a line of decisions, including Crawford v. Washington (2004) and Davis v. Washington (2006), that altered the Court's interpretation of the Confrontation Clause guarantee and clarified its application only to "testimonial" statements.
Issue
Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements.[1]
Procedural History
The cases was decided on June 23, 2011. The oral argument before the United States Supreme Court took place on March 2, 2011. The Supreme Court of New Mexico issued its decision, 147 N.M. 487, 226 P.3d 1, on February 12, 2010.