Shifting Confrontation from Final Product to Forensic Process: Two Maryland Cases Demonstrate the Pitfalls of Justice Thomas’s Approach to What is Testimonial and the Need for a Re-Framed Formality Test

57 Crim. L. Bull. 879 (2021) © 2021 Thomson Reuters/West

42 Pages Posted: 2 Dec 2020 Last revised: 3 Mar 2022

See all articles by Andrew Hamm

Andrew Hamm

American University - American University Washington College of Law, Students

Date Written: December 1, 2021

Abstract

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Williams v. Illinois, lower courts have struggled to apply the Confrontation Clause to forensic evidence. This Article proposes a solution. Under Justice Thomas’ “formality test,” a laboratory report should be deemed testimonial whenever the analyst followed the FBI’s Quality Assurance Standards and stated conclusions, interpretations, or opinions in the report. As currently applied, Justice Thomas’ test invites formalism into Confrontation Clause jurisprudence, treats trivial details as decisive, and promotes imprecision in scientific analysis. Two Maryland decisions from 2020 illustrate these problems, reaching opposite conclusions on formality when faced with similar DNA reports. In the case rejecting the confrontation claim, the court faulted the report for not including the precedential phrase, “within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.” But the U.S. Department of Justice released a memo in 2016 advising that analysts stop using that phrase. Today, neither the Maryland State Police nor the Baltimore City Police use it. The rule proffered in this Article follows precedent, but more importantly, it shifts the inquiry of formality from the four corners of a report to the scientific processes supporting the analyses.

Keywords: Sixth Amendment, Confrontation Clause, forensic evidence, DNA

Suggested Citation

Hamm, Andrew, Shifting Confrontation from Final Product to Forensic Process: Two Maryland Cases Demonstrate the Pitfalls of Justice Thomas’s Approach to What is Testimonial and the Need for a Re-Framed Formality Test (December 1, 2021). 57 Crim. L. Bull. 879 (2021) © 2021 Thomson Reuters/West, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3711836

Andrew Hamm (Contact Author)

American University - American University Washington College of Law, Students ( email )

4300 Nebraska Ave NW
Washington, DC, DC 20016
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
27
Abstract Views
562
PlumX Metrics