Docket Decision below: People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125 (Ill. S. Ct. No. 107550) Question Presented (by the Court): Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts, violates the Confrontation Clause… Read more
c. Expert testimony
Docket Decision Below (New Mexico supreme court) Question Presented: 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. Cert. Petition State’s Brief Opposing Cert SCOTUSblog… Read more
Docket Decision Below (New Mexico supreme court) Question Presented: 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. Cert. Petition State’s Brief Opposing Cert SCOTUSblog… Read more
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Jackson: Mark S. Rosen; BiC: Resp.; Reply Double Jeopardy – Retrial Following Mistrial Mistrial on defendant’s motion, occasioned by prosecutorial failure to disclose that witness was cooperating with police in separate investigation of Jackson, didn’t bar retrial: there was no showing that the prosecutor was… Read more
State v. Craig A. Swope, 2008 WI App 175 For Swope: Dianne M. Erickson Issue: Whether an FBI agent’s expert opinion, that the simultaneous deaths of an elderly couple were the result of homicide rather than natural causes, was improperly based on hearsay, namely the opinions of two non-testifying experts who thought the likelihood of… Read more
State v. David Barton, 2006 WI App 18 For Barton: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue: Whether the expert opinion of a crime lab analyst, presenting his own conclusions about tests performed by a non-testifying analyst, violated confrontation. Holding: ¶16 Like the unit leader’s testimony in Williams, Olson’s testimony was properly admitted because he was a qualified… Read more
