Bullcoming v. New Mexico
Headline: Court bars use of a lab report’s certification through a different scientist’s testimony, requiring the prosecution to produce the certifying analyst or show unavailability, making it harder to introduce forensic evidence without that analyst.
Holding:
- Requires prosecution to produce the certifying lab analyst or show unavailability and prior cross-examination opportunity.
- May force forensic labs to provide analysts for trial or retest blood samples.
- Could increase subpoenas and courtroom testimony, straining lab resources and trial scheduling.
Summary
Background
A driver arrested for aggravated DWI had his blood tested and a state laboratory analyst signed a report saying his blood-alcohol concentration was 0.21. At trial the prosecution did not call the analyst who signed the report. Instead, another laboratory scientist who had not run or observed the test testified and the signed report was admitted. The New Mexico Supreme Court allowed that substitute testimony, and the driver was convicted.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the Constitution’s right to face the witnesses against you (the right to confrontation) allows a lab’s signed, testimonial certificate to be admitted through testimony of a different scientist who neither performed nor observed the test. The Court held no. A signed laboratory certificate includes human assertions about sample handling and procedures, not just raw machine output, and those statements must be tested by cross-examination of the certifying analyst unless that analyst is truly unavailable and had been subject to prior questioning.
Real world impact
The decision requires prosecutors to produce the actual analyst who signed a forensic certificate, or prove the analyst is unavailable and the defendant already had a chance to question that person. That will affect many criminal prosecutions that rely on lab reports and may increase courtroom testimony, retesting, and demands on state laboratories. The Court reversed the New Mexico decision and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor agreed but emphasized the report’s primary purpose as trial evidence; Justice Kennedy dissented, warning the rule will burden labs and courts and that a knowledgeable lab witness should suffice.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?