On Point: c. Expert testimony

State v. Willie M. McDougle, 2013 WI App 43; case activity

Failure to object to admission of, and expert opinion based on, autopsy reports prepared by another pathologist

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object on confrontation clause grounds to either the opinion testimony of the pathologist who did not conduct autopsy or the reports of pathologist who did conduct the autopsy because any failure to object was not prejudicial:

¶17      …[T]rial counsel’s decision not to object to Dr.

On review of published decision; case activity

Confrontation — bases of expert opinion as “testimonial” hearsay

Issue (Composed by On Point)

When a State Crime Lab technician concludes there is a DNA match between defendant and assailant based in part on a report of a DNA profile prepared by an outside lab, is the outside lab report “testimonial” for Confrontation Clause purposes, thus requiring the outside lab technician who prepared the report to testify?

State v. Richard Lavon Deadwiller, 2012 WI App 89, supreme court review granted 1/14/13; affirmed, 2013 WI 75; case activity

A report from an “outside” lab (Orchid Cellmark) relied on by a State Crime Lab technician for “investigative” purposes in developing a DNA match between defendant and assailant wasn’t “testimonial,” therefore didn’t violate confrontation:

¶1        Richard Deadwiller appeals the judgments entered on jury verdicts convicting him of two counts of second-degree sexual assault with the use of force.  

State v. Matthew Owen Hoff, Jr., 2011AP2096-CR, District 3, 6/26/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

¶19      Here, before arresting Hoff, Gostovich observed him sleeping behind the wheel of a running car that was parked horizontally against the vertical parking stalls.  Hoff did not awake to Gostovich’s shouting or knocking.  When he finally awoke, he was disorientated and confused, and that disorientation “did not dissipate.”  Hoff’s speech was slowed,

Sandy Williams v. Illinois, USSC No. 10-8505, 6/18/12, affirming People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125, 939 N.E. 268

A split Court (4-1-4) upholds against Confrontation objection, admissibility of expert testimony that a DNA profile, produced by a different lab, matched Williams’ profile. Because the rationale favoring admissibility doesn’t earn a clear majority of votes, the opinion should be approached with the following principle in mind, 

On Point is very pleased to present this Guest Post discussion of Bullcoming v. New Mexico by Daniel D. Blinka, Professor of Law, Marquette University of Virginia. (Cross-posted at Marquette.)  Professor Brandon L. Garrett, Virginia, also has a Guest Post on Bullcoming. Feel free to submit comments in the box at the end of the Post.

Note that issues discussed in these posts will be further refined by the recent grant of certiorari in Williams v.

On Point is very pleased to present this Guest Post discussion of Bullcoming v. New Mexico by Brandon L. Garrett, Professor of Law, University of Virginia. (Cross-posted at ACS. On Point has made a minor editing change in the first sentence, to add the date of decision.) Professor Garret has previously guest-posted on DNA and habeas procedure.  Professor Daniel D. Blinka, Marquette,

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.

Hmm. Didn’t the Court just get done resolving this issue?

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 page

Follow-up to Melendez-Diaz v.

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 aware of the undisclosed information, or that failure to disclose was intended to provoke mistrial,