Another Confrontation Case at the Supremes - Williams v. Illinois

This Tuesday (6 Dec 11), the United States Supreme Court heard another Confrontation Clause case (Williams v. Illinois) dealing with forensic testing (ala Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming).  The question presented was

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.

At trial, the state called a DNA expert to testify about how it matched the accused's DNA profile with DNA evidence recovered from a rape victim, but the state did not call a DNA analyst from the company that conducted the initial testing.  The defendant later claimed that his right to confrontation was violated because he was denied an opportunity to question all of the DNA analysts that tested the evidence.  The Court was hotly divided on the issue, at times debating amongst themselves. 

Robert Barnes of the Washington Post covered the case HERE.  I couldn't attend the hearing, so I'll rely on his account of the oral argument.

The ABA preview of the case, which briefs and such, is HERE.

Videotaped Testimony of Child Sexual Abuse Victims Held Unconstitutional

Last week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion in Coronado v. State. 

[The CCA] granted review of the case to determine whether the videotape procedures set out in [the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure] Article 38.071, Section 2, including the use of written interrogatories in lieu of live testimony and cross-examination, satisfy the Sixth Amendment rights of confrontation...

The case involved a six year-old victim (who was three years-old when the abuse began) that the trial court determined was "unavailable" to testify in court because of the likelihood that she would suffer severe emotional trauma upon seeing the defendant.  Accordingly, the trial court allowed a neutral child interviewer to videotape an interview pursuant to Article 38.071, Section 2.  The defense counsel agreed to this procedure and propounded numerous questions for the interviewer to ask.  The defense counsel also agreed to allow the interviewer to ask follow-up questions that she deemed appropriate.  At trial, the video of the interview was played to the jury in lieu of any live testimony by the victim.

The videotape procedures of Article 38.071, Section 2, were enacted prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington.  Since that time, there has been a marked shift in confrontation clause jurisprudence in favor of a strict requirement of face-to-face live confrontation.  The lower appellate court, however, failed to cite (or even mention) the Crawford line of cases in its analysis.  The CCA, on the other hand, explained:

We are unable to find any post-Crawford precedent from any jurisdiction that states, or even suggests, that a list of written interrogatories, posed by a forensic examiner to a child in an ex parte interview, is a constitutional substitute for live cross-examination and confrontation...There was no "rigorous adversarial testing" of [the child victim's] testimonial statements by that greatest legal engine for uncovering the truth: contemporaneous cross-examination.  The written-interrogatories procedure used in this case does not pass muster under our English common-law adversarial system or our United States Constitution.

The CCA's reluctance to overturn this case was apparent.  On page 2 of the opinion, Judge Cochran writes, "On federal constitutional matters, we are obliged to follow the dictates of the United States Supreme Court regardless of our own notions."

Judge Hervey concurred.  While she agreed with the majority that the procedure used in this case was unconstitutional, she wrote separately to express her opinion that the defendant's right to confrontation should be balanced with the societal interest in protecting child victims.  She would not foreclose the possibility of allowing testimony via closed circuit television where the witness would testify in a separate room, but where the victim could still see the defendant and the jury.

Presiding Judge Keller dissented.  In a well-reasoned opinion, she explains why she believes that the confrontation clause was not violated in this case.  She calls this a "close case," but she would have affirmed.

The Supremes Do Not Shy Away From Confrontation

Sorry for the delay in posting.  I've been enjoying beautiful Lake Whitney for the past week.  Now I'm back in the office and have been catching up on the recent cases. 

Most interesting to me, was the Supreme Court opinion in Bullcoming v. New Mexico.  I was fortunate enough to watch the oral arguments in that case and the opinion seems to track the tenor of the justices' questions during the arguments.  Seeing as how I've missed the boat (while on the boat) on the Bullcoming recap, see ScotusBlog's excellent coverage HERE.

In the wake of the Bullcoming decision, and continuing in the pursuit of Confrontation Clause clarity, the Supreme Court granted certiorari this week in Williams v. Illinois (#10-8505) on the following question:

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.

This interests me greatly because this is the standard procedure for the military's urinalysis testing (and testifying).  The outcome of this case (when combined with Bullcoming and Melendez-Diaz) could create quite a shift in military courts-martial procedure.

HERE is the opinion from the Supreme Court of Illinois.

Confrontation of an Available Witness That Cannot Remember

What happens when a witness cannot remember facts to which she previously testified before the grand jury? Can the State simply read her grand jury testimony into evidence as past recollection recorded even though the Defendant was not present to cross-examine her during that hearing? Normally, I would say yes, but I’m not talking about a witness that cannot remember one fact or another.  I'm talking about a witness that cannot remember ANYTHING about which she testified before the grand jury.  To me, that changes the game a bit.

The CCA recently considered this issue in Woodall v. State. I say they “considered" it – actually the Court was careful not to provide a definite holding on the matter. Instead, it punted the case on procedural (waiver) grounds. Nonetheless, the CCA did provide some dicta that is a helpful insight into its thinking.

We believe that, under the facts of this case, memory loss did not render [the witness] “absent” for Confrontation Clause purposes…The Supreme Court has generally rejected the notion that a present and testifying witness is nevertheless absent for confrontation purposes if the witness suffer from memory loss.

Curiously, the CCA cites only pre-Crawford cases. For example, citing a 1970 Supreme Court case, the CCA quoted the concurring opinion of Justice Harlan, in which he opined that

a witness’s lack of memory should have no Sixth Amendment Consequence.

However, the legal landscape has drastically changed since the time of Justice Harlan’s opinion. I doubt Scalia would agree with such reasoning today. Then again, as a strict constructionist, maybe he would.  If the witness is available at trial, even if she cannot remember anything, is that enough to satisfy the 6th Amendment? I would argue NO, but perhaps I’m wrong. Either way, we will not find out with the Woodall case, because the CCA passed on the ultimate issue.

Dying Declaration Non-Testimonial Says the Supreme Court

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that dying declarations (classified in this case as "excited utterances") made to police officers and identifying the suspect, were admissible despite the fact that the witness did not later testify at trial.  The Court labeled the man's statements "non-testimonial" for purposes of the Confrontation Clause (and the Crawford case).  To read more about it, see CNN coverage HERE.

Read the Court's opinion in Michigan v. Bryant HERE.

Justice Scalia did not mince words in his dissent:

Today's tale -- a story of five officers conducting successive examinations of a dying man with the primary purpose, not of obtaining and preserving his testimony regarding his killer, but of protecting him, them, and others from a murderer somewhere on the loose -- is so transparently false that professing to believe it demeans this institution.

Cert Grant in Confrontation Case

The Supremes granted cert yesterday in Bullcoming v. New Mexico.  The certified issue is:

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 the laboratory analysis described in the statements.

HERE's a link to the New Mexico Supreme Court opinion.

This case sparks my interest on the military side where drug lab experts often testify about the lab work of other chemists, but any time the Court weighs in on the Confrontation Clause, it has the potential for broad impact.  This is one to watch.

Just Take My Word For It

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Meledez-Diaz v. Massachusetts that under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, crime lab analysts that conduct testing and prepare certificates (affidavits) regarding the contraband nature of a substance are “witnesses” and the defendant must be afforded an opportunity to confront them in court. This ended the State’s longtime practice of simply offering an affidavit from the crime lab to prove that the substance seized was, in fact, cocaine (or any form of contraband).

Similarly, the 2nd District Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) recently had the occasion to consider whether the admission of intoxilyzer maintenance records and breath test results (in a post-Melendez-Diaz world) violated the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him as provided in the Sixth Amendment. In Settlemire v. State, the technical supervisor of the intoxilyzer machine testified at trial to authenticate and breath test, but she was not the actual supervisor at the time of the test and she was not the technician who performed the test on the defendant.

Not surprisingly, the 2nd Court held that the supervisor’s testimony satisfied the Supreme Court’s mandate in Melendez-Diaz. In a brief opinion that was short on analysis, Justice Bleil quoted directly from Melendez-Diaz, wherein the Court explained:

[W]e do not hold, and it is not the case, that anyone whose testimony may be relevant in establishing the chain of custody, authenticity of the sample, or accuracy of the testing device, must appear in person as part of the prosecution’s case. . . . Additionally, documents prepared in the regular course of equipment maintenance may well qualify as nontestimonial records.

The opinion went on to state that the technical supervisor of the machine, who testified about the intoxilyzer’s status (although she did not supervise at the time of the defendant’s test) “is precisely the type of analyst that the Court anticipated might be challenged based on its holding in Melendez-Diaz.”

Fencing the Confrontation Clause

As the Court of Criminal Appeals aptly recognized, "the constitutional right of confrontation includes the right to cross-examine the witnesses and the opportunity to show that a witness is biased or that his testimony is exaggerated or unbelievable."  In the 1974 Supreme Court case Davis v. Alaska, the Court held that evidence that a witness with a juvenile record might be testifying because of a need to "curry favor" with the State or shift suspicion away from himself is constitutionally relevant and admissible under the Confrontation Clause.  However, rather than view this holding as one of inclusion, the CCA decided last week, in Irby v. State, that rather it was one of exclusion.  This recent holding by the CCA stands to significantly hamper the right to confrontation in Texas.

Regarding the right to confrontation of a witness with a prior juvenile record, the CCA held:

the confrontation clause may require the admission of such evidence if the cross-examination is reasonably calculated to expose a motive, bias, or interest for the witness to testify.  But the mere fact that a juvenile had been placed on probation or had some other vulnerable relationship with the State is not enough to establish bias or prejudice; the cross-examiner must show some causal connection between the witness’s vulnerable relationship and the witness’s testimony.

 Recognizing the potential implications of such a holding, Judge Holcomb dissented (joined by Judges Womack and Hervey), stating:

I believe that we cast a dark shadow on the constitutional right of confrontation by requiring a defendant to establish the kind of “logical relationship” the majority requires before allowing cross examination of a juvenile witness on his pending probationary record to show his possible bias or motive in testifying for the same prosecutorial authority which also supervises his probation. The majority, in my view, misapplies Davis v. Alaska, which clearly held that the constitutional right to question a juvenile witness regarding his pending probationary status trumps any State interest in protecting such juvenile offenders. Denying the defendant any opportunity to cross-examine a critical juvenile witness regarding his possible bias stemming from his probationary relationship with the State constitutes a denial of the right to effective cross-examination.

Breaking CCA Case Regarding Crawford's Application to Sentencing

Stringer v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) Delivered April 14, 2010 (Designated for publication).

Question Presented:  Whether the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and the Supreme Court holding in Crawford v. Washington were violated when the trial court in assessing punishment considered statements regarding an unadjudicated felony where those declarants were unavailable for cross examination and the Appellant had no prior opportunity to question them?

Held:

[W]hen a PSI is used in a non-capital case in which the defendant has elected to have the judge determine sentencing, Crawford does not apply. For us to conclude in Appellant’s favor would require a trial judge to hold a mini-trial for sentencing and would thwart the purpose of the PSI as a tool for the court to use in determining punishment. This holding is limited to a sentencing hearing in which the judge assesses punishment. We need not address here whether Crawford applies when a jury determines the sentence in a non-capital case.

Confrontation of Child Victim-Witnesses - A Constitutional Alternative?

So we all know that the 6th Amendment guarantees the accused, in every criminal prosecution, the right to be "confronted with the witnesses against him," and to have "meaningful and effective cross-examination."  Building on this principle, the Supreme Court more recently emphasized in Crawford that "testimonial statements" of a witness who did not appear at trial should NOT be admitted unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.  541 U.S. 36 (2004).

But do the prohibitions of Crawford apply equally to the testimony of child victims in Texas?  Well, it's hard to say.  The short answer is Yes, but there are exceptions provided for in Article 38.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  These exceptions are an effort to balance the defendant's right to constitutionally-required confrontation with the State's policy of protecting child witnesses in sexual assault cases (for instance) from further potential trauma that could be wrought by testifying in open court and coming face to face with the defendant.

In summary, Art. 38.071, which was drafted prior to Crawford, provides child victims (in certain cases) two alternatives to courtroom testimony (if the court makes a finding that they are "unavailable") by allowing them to testify:

• Pursuant to Section 2(b) - to a "neutral" third party (usually a child psychologist or social worker) outside the presence of a courtroom, the defendant, or the attorneys involved, so long as the testimony is videotaped.  The defendant is then allowed to submit interrogatories to be asked the child victim in the same manner as the previously recorded testimony.  Neither the defendant nor his attorney is allowed to be present when the questions are asked.  

     OR

• Pursuant to Section 3(a) - in a room other than the courtroom (outside the presence of the defendant) through the use of a closed-circuit television.

While the Supreme Court has recognized that the constitution does not guarantee the absolute right to face-to-face confrontation (see Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)), I have to wonder if this "interrogatory"  alternative (Section 2(b) above) to cross-examination is what the Supreme Court meant by "meaningful and effective cross-examination."  While it is a way of recording testimony, it isn't really cross-examination at all.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has not yet considered this issue.  The 2nd District Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) considered the issue in Rangel v. State, 22 S.W.3d 523, wherein it held that (1) a child victim's videotaped statement was "testimonial" and therefore governed by Crawford, and (2) by providing a defendant with the opportunity to submit written questions, section 2(b) of article 38.071 (i.e. the interrogatory section) serves as a constitutionally sufficient alternative to face-to-face confrontation of witnesses.  The CCA initially granted discretionary review to consider the constitutionality of Article 38.071, section 2(b), but later dismissed as improvidently granted.

The 7th District Court of Appeals (Amarillo) released an opinion last week consistent with the 2nd Court's holding in Rangel upholding the constitutionality of article 38.071, section 2(b).  See Coronado v. State HERE.  Maybe this will give the CCA occasion to consider this issue?

CCA Holds: Out-of-Court Statements by Confidential Informant Violate Crawford and Confrontation Clause

In a big case for the 6th Amendment and the ever-expanding Crawford jurisprudence, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals released its opinion in Langham v. State yesterday.

Langham v. State, NO. PD-1780-08

In Langham, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the 11th Court of Appeals, which previously upheld the admissibility of out-of-court statements made to a detective by a confidential informant. In so doing, the 11th Court of Appeals reasoned that "[h]ere, the primary purpose behind the [out-of-court] statements of the confidential informant was not to provide testimony but to provide information to Detective Smith in order that he could obtain a search warrant." The testimony was later offered at trial through the Detective and used substantively in the State's case.

The CCA reversed, citing the 11th Court's "flawed understanding of what the Supreme Court meant" in Crawford v. Washington. Writing for the majority (6-3), Judge Price stated, "[w]e conclude that the court of appeals erred to hold that Smith's testimony recounting the statements of the out-of-court confidential informant did not violate the Confrontation Clause." "[I]t is manifest that the 'primary purpose' of Detective Smith's communication with his confidential informant was to pave the way for a potential criminal prosecution."

This case appears very fact dependant, so I'm not positive that a bright-line rule has emerged. From my point of view, however, the State is going to have an uphill battle if it wants to introduce any statements by confidential informants.

Presiding Judge Keller dissented. While she did not denounce the rule that statements from a CI would violate the CC, she would affirm this case because the substance of the statements from the CI was slight. Judges Hervey (Keller, Keasler joined) also dissented due to "reservations" regarding whether the statements of the CI were "testimonial."