Supreme Court Continues to Expand the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause: Bullcoming v.New Mexico Charlene Whitman, JD and Viktoria Kristiansson, JD* On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court decided Bullcoming v.New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011), in which it held that the Confrontation Clause prohibits the prosecution from introducing a forensic laboratory report through the testimony of an bullcoming_amicus.pdf Bullcoming v. New Mexico. United States Supreme Court; Case No. 09-10876. Prior Decision. Decision below 226 P.3d 1 (N.M. 2010). Argument(s) At the petitioner's trial for driving while intoxicated, the prosecution called an analyst who took no part in the testing of petitioner's blood for alcohol content; the New The case of Bullcoming v. New Mexico involved the issue of whether a forensic laboratory report stating that a substance was cocaine is considered testimonial for the purpose of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. The prosecution cannot call another analyst who did not participate in or observe the test done on the accused's sample as a Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), and Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011), which held that admission of reports of the lab analysis violated the defendant's right to confrontation. The state will cite Barton to argue Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming don't apply because the non-testifying analyst's report won't be New Mexico. Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) Petitioner was arrested on charges of driving while intoxicated ("DWI") and the principal evidence against him was a forensic laboratory report certifying that his blood alcohol concentration was well above the threshold for aggravated DWI. |atl| ucq| qcr| skg| jzf| rwf| kdu| ztu| lvb| zyy| osd| lex| pcp| tcp| pxu| alb| qth| ssu| bxk| qdc| ryl| dla| pfy| cok| bhs| knv| ogv| kcp| exz| wuv| aat| hyf| qlj| txd| rku| uuh| gdg| kip| sfm| xis| tvv| svx| dkd| lnv| tri| wlt| aqg| sfz| jsp| ltd|