Bullcoming v. New Mexico

2011-06-23

Headline: Limits use of forensic lab reports: Court reverses conviction and bars prosecutors from introducing a signed blood-alcohol certificate through testimony of a different scientist, requiring the certifying analyst to testify or be unavailable after cross-examination.

Holding: The Court held the Confrontation Clause bars admitting a testimonial forensic laboratory certification through testimony of a different analyst; the defendant must be able to confront the certifying analyst unless that analyst is unavailable and previously cross-examined.

Real World Impact:

Prosecutors must produce the analyst who signed forensic reports or show unavailability and prior cross-examination.
Allows courts to exclude blood-alcohol certificates introduced through testimony of a different analyst.
May require labs or prosecutors to retest samples and bring analysts to court.

Topics: forensic evidence, confrontation rights, DWI/blood-alcohol tests, criminal procedure

Summary

Background

A man, Donald Bullcoming, was arrested after a car accident and taken for a blood draw. The state lab’s analyst, Curtis Caylor, signed a report saying the blood-alcohol level was 0.21. At trial the prosecutor did not call Caylor. Instead, another lab scientist who had not performed or observed the test testified and the signed report was admitted as a business record. A jury convicted the driver of aggravated DWI.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the Constitution allows a testimonial lab certification to be introduced through the testimony of a different analyst. Relying on prior decisions, the majority held that a certification prepared to prove a fact at trial is testimonial. The Court said the defendant has the right to confront the specific analyst who made the certification unless that analyst is unavailable and the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine that analyst. Surrogate testimony by a scientist who did not perform or observe the test does not satisfy that right.

Real world impact

The ruling requires prosecutors to produce the analyst who signed a forensic certificate, arrange for retesting by a testifying analyst, or show the original analyst truly is unavailable after the defendant had a chance to cross-examine earlier. The Court noted existing options—retesting, notice-and-demand rules, and routine lab practices—that can reduce burdens on prosecutors and labs, but it emphasized the prosecution bears the burden of presenting witnesses.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor agreed on the outcome and stressed the report’s evidentiary purpose. Justice Kennedy dissented, warning the decision burdens prosecutions and arguing knowledgeable lab witnesses should suffice to test reliability.