New Jersey Criminal Lawyers Blog

In a recent United States Supreme Court case (Bullcoming v. New Mexico), a defendant's DWI conviction was reversed and remanded on Constitutional grounds. The opinion of the highest court in the land is of course binding on all inferior courts in the United States. The principle at issue was a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses that present testimony or evidence used to prove his guilt. The confrontation clause is in place so that a defendant may confront his accusers so as to ensure a fair trial.

The underlying issue at question was whether or not a lab report showing a defendant's blood alcohol content (BAC) may be admitted into evidence during DWI proceedings without corroborating testimony by the analyst who actually prepared the report. The government attempted to submit in person testimony of another analyst who worked at the particular lab but did not prepare the defendant's actual report. This was problematic for the defendant and the Supreme Court. Since the analyst who was present at the trial could not answer specific questions regarding the preparation of the defendant's lab report, the court ruled that the admittance of the lab report itself was violative of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Confrontation Clause.

The court also ruled that report was purely testimonial in nature. When a report is testimonial, it can mean that the report was specifically prepared in preparation of litigation. Here, it is clear that the lab report (measuring blood alcohol content) was only prepared to show that the defendant was intoxicated while driving his motor vehicle. The report was in fact key evidence and essential to the case. Because the defendant could not question the analyst who prepared the report, it's validity, authenticity, and process could not be ascertained with certainty.

There are a few exceptions that would allow the report without the corroborating testimony of the analyst. If the analyst was not available to testify, the lab report could be submitted without him or her. There are very stringent standards, however, to show that he is not available to testify. Another exception could be that the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the analyst pre-trial (either by deposition or interrogatory).

The right to confront an accuser is a fundamental right granted under the United States Constitution and it applies in every courtroom in the United States. If you believe that you're right to confrontation has been violated, contact an experienced DWI attorney who can navigate your legal issues. It is important to obtain counsel that is knowledgeable in DWI, DUI, and Refusal proceedings in New Jersey to protect your rights.