During the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has focused a great deal of attention on what is known as the "Confrontation Clause" of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The Confrontation Clause provides that persons accused of crimes have the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against" them.
The recent case of Bullcoming v. New Mexico is the latest example of the Court's interestthe Court held that Mr. Bullcoming's Confrontation Clause rights were violated when he was denied the opportunity to confront and cross examine the analyst who actually test the alcohol concentration of the blood in his case. In Bullcoming, the prosecution called a different lab analyst to testify than the one that actually analyzed Bullcoming's blood sample. The Court held that this testimony was not proper as Mr. Bullcoming was not able to confron the witness who actually analyzed his blood. Rather, he was able only to questions a surrogate analyst testifying to what another analyst did to reach his or her conclusion as the alcohol concentration.
This decision may impact Collin County Driving While Intoxicated cases because it will likely require the State to arrange for the anaylist that actually performed the blood test to appear in court to testify and be subject to cross examination before the results of a blood test will be admissible against an accused person
Good job keeping the info alive and everyone posted, Derek. Great website you have here.