https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Blog%3AMain%2FJeff_Fisher%27s_new_Cert_Petition 2026-09-19T23:53:53Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.19.24 https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/Jeff_Fisher%27s_new_Cert_Petition&diff=8369&oldid=prev 2012-12-21T00:29:38Z

<p>Importing text file</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>&lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ''QUESTION PRESENTED''<br /> <br /> ''Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements.''<br /> <br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> That is the question presented in Jeff Fisher's [http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Erdfrdman/PendergrasCertPetition.pdf new petition for cert] to the US Supreme Court. Jeff Fisher of ''Blakely'' and ''Crawford'' fame. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that a supervisor who didn't perform the lab test could testify instead of the person who did the actual work. Fisher, as expected, lays out a crystal clear argument as to why this is a bad ruling. Everything flows from the fact that the Constitution guarantees a defendant the right &quot;to be confronted with ''the'' witnesses against him&quot;.<br /> <br /> h/t [http://confrontationright.blogspot.com/2010/01/cert-petition-on-who-must-testify.html Confrontation Blog]<br /> {{wl-publish: 2010-02-01 21:00:00 -0800 | abassos }}</div>

Maintenance script