California Tackles Substitute Analysts Post-Williams

In a paper here I analyze Williams v. Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest confrontation decision on substitute analyst testimony. Because Williams was a fractured opinion in which no rationale garnered five votes, it didn’t answer a lot of questions. Three companion cases recently decided by the California Supreme Court show how one court is dealing with the issue post-Williams. In the first case, People v. Lopez, 286 P.3d 469 (Cal. 2012), the defendant was charged with vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. To establish the defendant’s intoxication, the prosecution introduced into evidence—over objection—a laboratory report done by Jorge Peña of the Crime Laboratory indicating the percentage of alcohol in the defendant’s blood sample. Peña did not testify at trial. Instead, the prosecution offered Peña’s colleague, John Willey, who had reviewed the report. Willey had worked at the lab for many years, knew its procedures, and had trained Peña. Willey testified—again, over objection—that Pena used a gas chromatograph to analyze the sample and that the report stated that it contained an alcohol concentration of 0.09 percent. Willey added that based on his own “separate abilities as a criminal analyst,” he agreed that the sample’s blood-alcohol concentration was 0.09 percent. The defendant was convicted and appealed, asserting a confrontation clause violation. The California Supreme Court upheld the conviction. The Lopez court determined that under U.S. Supreme Court law, a statement is testimonial when it is made with some degree of formality or solemnity and its primary purpose pertains to a criminal prosecution. Id. at [...]