The United States Supreme Court has once again held that the introduction of the results of a forensic analysis on what appear to be drugs and drug-related items must be done by the testimony of the person who performed the analysis unless that person is unavailable, and the defendant had the prior opportunity to cross examine the person. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees that an accused has the right to confront that person. Another witness for the State may not review the findings of the technician who did the analysis and then offer “an independent opinion on the … testing performed” by the other person because such evidence, to be relevant, is offered for the truth of the matter asserted by the original analyst as a matter of law.
The opinion in Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. ___, United States Supreme Court, Decided June 21, 2024, (only citation currently available is 2024 WL 3074423) expands on principles established in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009).
By extension, this logic should be applied regarding the forensic analysis of blood and other bodily fluids in impaired driving cases.
