One issue raised by the new case concerns whether a majority of the Court still supports the Confrontation Clause analysis established under Crawford v. Washington in 2004, and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts in 2009. Two Justices who voted in the majority (John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter) have since retired. The five majority votes in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts included author Justice Antonin Scalia and Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas (who also filed a concurring opinion), and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The four dissenting included Justice Kennedy, who authored the dissent, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.. It is unclear whether a new majority will be formed on the Confrontation Clause analysis and how the newest Justices (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) will vote on Confrontation Clause issues.

The U. S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Bullcoming v. New Mexico. Courtesy of CAAFLog here is the granted issue:

Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform the laboratory analysis described in the statements.

Sounds like Blazier doesn’t it. Question, will CAAF defer ruling in Blazier and several riders awaiting a decision in Bullcoming.

Here is the decision in State v. Bullcoming.

Courtesy of Prof. Friedman:

The petition for a writ of certiorari.

Respondents brief in opposition.

Reply brief of petitioner.

State v. Aragon, a companion case to Bullcoming.

Commenting on this case, Kent Schiedegger over at crimeandconsequences observes:

Should the analyst be relieved he doesn’t have to go testify or insulted he is called a “mere scrivener”?

Here is the SCOTUSBlog link.