Court Grants Cert. to Examine Expert Testimony Under the Confrontation Clause

This wikilog article is a draft, it was not published yet.

by: Grapkoch • June 27, 2011 • no comments

This morning the Court granted cert. in another Confrontation Clause case, this time focusing on defining the contours of the rule when expert testimony is at issue:

Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts, violates the Confrontation Clause.

In the opinion below, available here, the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the process at issue did not implicate the Confrontation Clause:

In sum, the State did not offer Lambatos' testimony regarding the Cellmark report for the truth of the matter asserted and this testimony did not constitute "hearsay." Thus, the trial court and appellate court properly concluded that Crawford considerations did not apply here. Lambatos disclosed the underlying facts from Cellmark's report for the limited purpose of explaining the basis for her opinion on the critical issue concerning whether there was a DNA match between the defendant's blood sample and the semen sample recovered from L.J. By allowing the expert to reveal the information for this purpose alone, it undoubtedly aided the judge, sitting as the factfinder, in assessing the value of Lambatos' opinion.

More information on Williams v. Illinois, No. 10-8505 can be found at the SCOTUSblog case page and at SCOTUSblog correspondent Lyle Denniston's update.