Bullcoming v. New Mexico
E821197
Bullcoming v. New Mexico is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that defendants have the right to cross-examine the specific analyst who prepared a forensic laboratory report used as evidence against them.
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Confrontation Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional criminal procedure
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ evidence law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 2011-03-02 ⓘ |
| caseOutcome | Judgment of the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed ⓘ |
| citation | 564 U.S. 647 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy | Sonia Sotomayor NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| concurrenceType |
concurring in part
ⓘ
concurring in the judgment ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Confrontation Clause
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2011-06-23 ⓘ |
| decisionType | 5–4 decision ⓘ |
| dissentBy | Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| dissentJoinedBy |
John G. Roberts Jr.
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Samuel A. Alito Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 09-10876 ⓘ |
| factPattern | The case involved admission of a blood-alcohol concentration report in a DWI prosecution without testimony from the analyst who performed the test. ⓘ |
| fullName | Bullcoming v. New Mexico NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
Surrogate testimony by another analyst who did not perform or observe the test is insufficient to satisfy the Confrontation Clause when the report is testimonial.
ⓘ
The Confrontation Clause requires that the prosecution present the testimony of the analyst who certified a forensic laboratory report unless that analyst is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| issue | Whether the prosecution may introduce a forensic laboratory report through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test. ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Antonin Scalia
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ Elena Kagan NERFINISHED ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| keyword |
forensic evidence
ⓘ
laboratory analyst testimony ⓘ surrogate expert testimony ⓘ testimonial statements ⓘ |
| lowerCourt | Supreme Court of New Mexico NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| originatingJurisdiction | State of New Mexico NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| page | 647 ⓘ |
| party |
Donald Bullcoming
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
State of New Mexico NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
Crawford v. Washington
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts NERFINISHED ⓘ Williams v. Illinois NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
admissibility of forensic laboratory reports
ⓘ
right to confrontation of witnesses ⓘ |
| volume | 564 ⓘ |
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.