U.S. v. Porter, 72 M.J. 335

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Confrontation

1. given that the error in the admission of testimonial evidence in violation of the confrontation clause is constitutional, the question is not whether the evidence was legally sufficient without the testimonial evidence, but whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction; this determination is made on the basis of the entire record

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Hearsay › Generally

1. two pages of a drug testing report, summarizing the test results with signatures of the analyst and reviewer, were testimonial and admitted in violation of the confrontation clause, where the purpose of the signature blocks on the confirmation summary pages was to certify that the lab’s testing controls and standards were met for the accused’s tests, the pages were prepared by analysts with certain knowledge that the testing was part of a criminal investigation, and there is no question that the statements were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that they would be available for use at a later trial; additionally, the confirmation summary pages (1) were generated by an external request from law enforcement for the purpose of criminal investigation; and (2) summarized additional substantive information - namely, that the accused’s samples were positive for illegal drugs and that the lab’s testing controls and standards were met for his tests; these facts suggest that the pages were created for the purpose of establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution, and would reasonably be expected to be used prosecutorially, rather than having been made for an administrative purpose
2. the military judge’s admission in violation of the confrontation clause of two testimonial pages of a drug testing report, summarizing the test results with signatures of the analyst and reviewer, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where with regard to the quantitative results of the drug tests, the expert witness exclusively referenced the testimonial statements in the summary pages without delving into the underlying machine-generated data, and he highlighted the signature blocks on the summary pages to establish that the lab’s testing standards and controls were followed during the testing of the accused’s samples; at no time did the expert witness specifically interpret or rely on the machine-generated portions of the drug testing report to independently conclude that the accused’s samples had tested positive for illegal drugs; in light of these facts, the government failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that there was no reasonable possibility that the testimonial statements contributed to the accused’s convictions

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. given that the error in the admission of testimonial evidence in violation of the confrontation clause is constitutional, the question is not whether the evidence was legally sufficient without the testimonial evidence, but whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction; this determination is made on the basis of the entire record
2. the military judge’s admission in violation of the confrontation clause of two testimonial pages of a drug testing report, summarizing the test results with signatures of the analyst and reviewer, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where with regard to the quantitative results of the drug tests, the expert witness exclusively referenced the testimonial statements in the summary pages without delving into the underlying machine-generated data, and he highlighted the signature blocks on the summary pages to establish that the lab’s testing standards and controls were followed during the testing of the accused’s samples; at no time did the expert witness specifically interpret or rely on the machine-generated portions of the drug testing report to independently conclude that the accused’s samples had tested positive for illegal drugs; in light of these facts, the government failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that there was no reasonable possibility that the testimonial statements contributed to the accused’s convictions

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. given that the error in the admission of testimonial evidence in violation of the confrontation clause is constitutional, the question is not whether the evidence was legally sufficient without the testimonial evidence, but whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction; this determination is made on the basis of the entire record