In at least five prior posts on this blog (here, here, here, here, and here) I have written about the use of substitute analysts after Crawford and Melendez-Diaz. The basic issue is whether the confrontation clause is violated when an expert testifies to an opinion based on tests or analysis done by a non-testifying analyst. The issue can arise in any case involving crime laboratory reports and related evidence (such as autopsy reports), but it arises most frequently in drug and impaired driving cases. News reports about problems in state crimes laboratories have brought the issue to a crescendo, with the defense pointing to those reports as an exclamation point on the need for face-to-face confrontation of forensic analysts. The United States Supreme Court’s recent grant of certiorari in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, __ S. Ct. __ (No. 09-10876) (Sept. 28, 2010), suggests that the Court is poised to resolve the issue, at least in part. Bullcoming is a New Mexico case in which the defendant, who was involved in a vehicle accident, showed signs of intoxication and failed field sobriety tests. When the defendant refused to take a breath test after his arrest, the arresting officer obtained a search warrant to perform a blood test. That test revealed that the defendant had a blood alcohol content of .21 gms/100ml, well over the legal limit. At the defendant’s trial on felony impaired driving charges, the State presented the blood test report through Gerasimos Razatos, an analyst for the state Department of [...]