Does a Defendant Have a Right to Confront the Government’s Expert Witnesses?
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants the right to require witnesses against them to come to court and be cross-examined. One key question that arises under the Confrontation Clause is whether a defendant has the right to cross-examine government experts who perform testing or analysis (e.g., DNA testing or blood analysis) and submit written reports to the prosecutor, but do not testify. This is a hot topic that your Boston criminal defense lawyer needs to be on top of.
Supreme Court rulings
This issue is not yet resolved, but the Supreme Court has weighed in on several occasions.
In Bullcoming v. New Mexico (June 2011), the Supreme Court held that scientific reports could not be used as evidence against a defendant unless the analyst who prepared and certified the report was subject to cross-examination. There, the Court held that a lab report showing a driver’s blood alcohol content was not admissible in evidence because the technician who prepared the report did not testify at trial.
More recently, in Williams v. Illinois (June 2012), the Supreme Court looked at a state rule of evidence that allowed a government expert (a forensic specialist at the Illinois State Police Lab) to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by analysts at an outside laboratory, Cellmark. The defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine the actual Cellmark analysts, and argued that the government expert’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause. The Court determined that the primary purpose of the Cellmark report was to catch a rapist who was still at large, not to obtain evidence against the defendant personally, who was not identified, or in custody or under suspicion at the time. The Court held that the analysts at Cellmark could not possibly have known that the DNA profile they provided the State would inculpate the defendant, and that Cellmark had no “prospect of fabrication” or incentive to produce anything other than a scientifically reliable profile. Accordingly, in this case, the admission of the expert’s testimony about the results of DNA testing performed by a non-testifying analyst did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
In a recent trend, the Supreme Court has approved of “notice and demand” rules, which require the prosecution to give notice to the defendant of its intent to use an analyst’s report at trial. The defendant is allowed a period of time in which he or she may object to the admission of the evidence, absent the analyst’s appearance at trial (see, e.g., Menendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009)).
Contact a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer
The Mahoney Criminal Defense Group will guard your constitutional rights and give you sound legal advice, based on our years of experience in the courtroom. If you are facing a criminal trial and you would like to speak with our Boston, MA criminal defense lawyers, please call (617) 492-0055 or submit our online contact form.
- Secretary Betsy DeVos: Slowly Remaking Title IX Investigations - August 2, 2018
- The Shooting of Kathryn Steinle - January 2, 2018
- Massachusetts House Passes Major Criminal Justice Bill - December 7, 2017
