Bullcoming v. New Mexico
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), is a significant 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extend to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause.
Wikipage redirect
primaryTopic
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), is a significant 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extend to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause.
has abstract
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 ...... y to "testimonial" statements.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
31,267,421
Wikipage revision ID
739,092,705
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
Concurrence
DecideDate
DecideYear
Dissent
Holding
A second surrogate analyst's t ...... ates the Confrontation Clause.
JoinDissent
Roberts, Breyer, Alito
JoinMajority
Scalia, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan
Litigants
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
majority
ParallelCitations
Prior
SCOTUS
subject
comment
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 ...... nder the Confrontation Clause.
@en
label
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
@en
wasDerivedFrom
isPrimaryTopicOf
name
Donald Bullcoming v. State of New Mexico
@en