The United States Supreme Court decided a big Confrontation Clause case yesterday. I hope that Jessie Smith will do a full recap and analysis of it, but the central holding of Bullcoming v. New Mexico, from the Court's syllabus, is that "[t]he Confrontation Clause . . . does not permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification, made in order to prove a fact at a criminal trial, through the in-court testimony of an analyst who did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the certification." In other words, no substitute analysts. Our appellate courts were headed in this general direction anyhow, but not completely consistently. In other news: 1. A number of criminal law bills have either been signed by the Governor or allowed to become law without her signature. Jamie Markham is planning a post about H 642, the Justice Reinvestment Act, and I hope that John Rubin will write about H 650, the Castle Doctrine, but both make significant changes and are worth a look. 2. The News and Observer has this article about a Gaston County man who more-or-less attempted to rob a bank of $1. (The story states that he "went inside and handed the teller a note demanding $1. Then he told the teller he would just sit down and wait for police to arrive.") Apparently, his intention was to get arrested so that he would have access to health care in jail. [...]
Faculty Coordinators
