Also known as: forensic laboratory report · forensic lab reports · forensic lab report · lab reports · forensic reports
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Statements contained in certificates or reports of forensic analysis prepared for use at trial. Such statements qualify as testimonial and may be admitted to prove the truth of their contents only if the analyst who performed the test testifies or the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Frank Fisher stood trial for possession of cocaine. The prosecution offered a lab report stating that the seized powder tested positive for the drug. The analyst who performed the test did not appear. The court excluded the report because the defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine the analyst who prepared it.
Faye Fuller faced DUI charges after a car accident. The state introduced a blood-alcohol report through a second analyst who had not performed or observed the testing. The court held that the report remained testimonial and required the actual testing analyst for confrontation purposes.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Forrest Falconer was prosecuted for sexual assault. An expert testified that the defendant's DNA matched a profile generated by an outside laboratory. The report itself was not admitted, yet the court examined whether the expert's reliance on the out-of-court profile triggered confrontation rights.
A forensic laboratory report becomes testimonial when it is prepared for use in a criminal prosecution and an objective witness would reasonably believe it would be available for use at trial. Primary purpose of the report determines its status under the Confrontation Clause.
Supporting sources
A second analyst may not introduce the report in place of the testing analyst. The Confrontation Clause requires the defendant to have the opportunity to cross-examine the analyst who actually performed the forensic analysis.
Supporting sources
An expert may offer an independent opinion, but the underlying forensic laboratory report remains subject to confrontation analysis when offered for its truth. The report's testimonial character controls whether the analyst must be available for cross-examination.
Supporting sources
…Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Sotomayor join, dissenting. The Court today allows the State to introduce the substance of a forensic laboratory report through the testimony of an expert who had no involvement in the actual testing. This decision represents a serious departure from the principles established in Crawford v. Washington and…