Crawford & Expert Testimony

In April we posted about Crawford and expert testimony, and we’ve blogged about other confrontation issues. A commenter has brought some helpful information to our attention, and now yours.

1. Federal Criminal Defense Journal. The Fall inaugural issue is on line. It’s a new journal so we’ll have to see where it takes us, but for the moment there are three interesting articles.

a. Crawford and Expert Testimony as Hearsay: A Practical Guide to Navigating the Uncertain Currents of Expert Testimony Under Crawford.

b. A Guide to Avoiding the Dangers in Allowing One Government Agent to Give Both Lay and Expert Testimony.

We’ve already directed you several times to the ConfrontationBlog and recommended following the current “Crawford” case of Melendez-Diaz as we await a decision from the Supremes (oral arugument was heard in November 2008). The M-D decision may affect the two central C.A.A.F. (thus military) cases on confrontation on the merits. I say on the merits because there’s no Sixth Amendment confrontation (only Fifth Amendment due process) at an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing, or during sentencing.

United States v. Magyari, 63 M.J. 123 (C.A.A.F. 2006), continues the presumption of guilt and burden shifting in “naked” urinalysis cases.
United States v. Harcrow, 66 M.J. 154 (C.A.A.F. 2008), relates to laboratory reports such as those from USACI, DCFL, or other police labs.

Here from the FCDJ is the third article.
Testimonial Business Records: A Post-Crawford Analysis.