James Lee Ware, alias v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 03/25/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 CR-08-1177 James Lee Ware v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WELCH, Presiding James degree from Court Judge. L e e Ware burglary, Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t (CC-06-284) appeals a violation from h i s convictions of § 13A-7-5(a)(1), for firstA l a . Code CR-08-1177 1975; 1 first-degree Ala. Code 1975; and robbery, a violation of § 13A-8-41(a)(1), f i r s t - d e g r e e r a p e , a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-6- 6 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. He presents four issues on appeal. Facts On the graduate student Tuscaloosa, man night lying was on her June enrolled of her at and a t o w e l and attacker, 8, who for her l i f e t h e man the Having was rapist when she bag. something t h e man When to he rape left of was her a Alabama in awakened by eyes L.M. L.M., w i t h what struggled panties off, a weapon, she not to k i l l her. f o r c i b l y r a p e d two L.M. her a she with and s h a r p i n t h e man's b a c k f e l t w h a t s h e t h o u g h t was attempted victim, University pulling L.M.'s r o o m , s h e was unsuccessful. the c o v e r i n g her forcibly and began t o beg left the a plastic d u r i n g t h e s t r u g g l e she f e l t pocket. 1993, a s l e e p i n her bed top b e l i e v e d was of a room, Before times and time but was rapist left the third the feared Ware committed t h e c r i m e i n 1993 b e f o r e t h e b u r g l a r y s t a t u t e was a m e n d e d i n 2 0 0 6 . W a r e was c h a r g e d u n d e r t h e p r e amended v e r s i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e . H a r d y v . S t a t e , 570 S o . 2 d 871 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990)(unless otherwise stated i n the statute, the law i n e f f e c t at the time the offense was committed c o n t r o l s the o f f e n s e ) . 1 2 CR-08-1177 blindfold over electrical cord, and i n s t r u c t e d her attacker L.M.'s rambling believed her assailant and eyes, telephoned bound the police her house. h e r house, where a rape k i t a n a l y s i s than t h e rape k i t , crime scene The the for case Alabama obtained that no p h y s i c a l a grant that the presence present, could of f o r several Forensic ( h e a r i n g on m o t i o n heard When L.M. herself Money and a L.M. w a s t a k e n t o Other the rapist. years. Sciences I n 2004 ("the DFS") e n a b l e d " c o l d - c a s e r a p e s " t o be of deoxyribonucleic acid lead L.M. was p r e p a r e d . to identify unsolved Department to the identification t o d i s m i s s , R. 1 2 . ) tested ("DNA"), w h i c h i f of the rapist. DNA i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s " [ a ] m e t h o d o f s c i e n t i f i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n b a s e d on a person's unique genetic makeup; speci., the c o m p a r i s o n o f a p e r s o n ' s d e o x y r i b o n u c l e i c a c i d (DNA) -a patterned chemical structure of genetic i n f o r m a t i o n -- w i t h t h e DNA i n a b i o l o g i c a l s p e c i m e n (such as b l o o d , tissue, or hair) t o determine whether t h e person i s t h e source o f t h e specimen. DNA i s u s e d i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s f o r p u r p o s e s s u c h a s 2 L.M. was n o t a s k e d about an e v i d e n c e was o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e c o u l d be u s e d remained with 2 she f r e e d and h e r b o y f r i e n d . diamond r i n g had been taken from h e r house. the h o s p i t a l , feet h e r n o t t o move. throughout had l e f t L.M.'s h e r hands. 3 CR-08-1177 i d e n t i f y i n g a v i c t i m ' s remains, l i n k i n g a suspect t o a crime, and exonerating an i n n o c e n t suspect." Black's Law Dictionary identification i s also 516-17 (8th ed. t e r m e d DNA p r o f i l i n g . 2004). DNA Id. Thus, i n 2004, t h e T u s c a l o o s a P o l i c e Department d e l i v e r e d to t h e DFS t h e r a p e including kits, L.M.'s. Later including ("Orchid") taken L.M.'s, L.M.'s rape L.M.'s rape several to Orchid profile discloses material, k i t , tested i n t h e form that as 3 k i t , the swabs, and r e c o r d e d i n t h e case f i l e DNA many o f graphs as unsolved rape cases, t h e DFS d e l i v e r e d t h e r a p e Maryland. the biological from from i n 2004, i n Germantown, From processed kits Cellmark Laboratory (R. 4 2 6 , 4 2 9 . ) laboratory i.e., technicians the vaginal t h e DNA present swabs, on t h e a visual analysis ofthe and c h a r t s . s i x laboratory The record technicians 5 A single reference t o "Orchid Cellmark Laboratory" i n D a l l a s , T e x a s w a s made a p a g e 65 o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t . This a p p e a r s t o be an e r r o r . 3 A swab i s a wooden s t i c k w i t h a c o t t o n t i p on o n e e n d . I n a r a p e k i t , a swab i s u s e d t o c o l l e c t b i o l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l from t h e v i c t i m ' s v a g i n a a f t e r a rape. I t i s hoped t h a t t h e r a p i s t ' s semen w i l l b e a p a r t o f t h e b i o l o g i c a l material c o l l e c t e d on t h e swab. 4 5 Those The a n a l y s t p l a c e d t h e i r i n i t i a l s b e s i d e t h e procedures. i n i t i a l s a r e : J H F , MLM, JJW, ADM, NRG, a n d J L K . 4 4 CR-08-1177 p e r f o r m e d t e s t s o n L.M.'s v a g i n a l laboratory technicians Examination." profile and scientific and s t a t e d the T h e DNA p r o f i l e Orchid's laboratory Orchid's molecular Jason operating that work was also a conclusions the evidence report i s t h e DNA tested, about forensic the tested to i scollected. custodian setting Kokoszka had standard forth how t h e a n d t h e way i n w h i c h t h e Kokoszka t e s t i f i e d a molecular of records. "following Ph.D. trial. laboratory and g u i d e l i n e s t o being issued provided would be r e t u r n e d a t Ware's p r o f i l e r e p o r t i n L.M.'s c a s e r e p r e s e n t e d "routinely" Laboratory was r e v i e w e d a n d a p p r o v e d b y i s t o be p e r f o r m e d laboratory material he the items testified every i n addition of g e n e t i c i s t , J a s o n E. K o k o s z k a , procedures laboratory a "Report The d i r e c t o r , L e w i s O. M a d d o x , Ph.D., a n d b y E. K o k o s z k a testified 2004, that ( S e e CR. 2 7 9 . ) The r e s u l t i n g r e p o r t I t documented material, DFS. compiled (CR. 2 5 8 - 6 0 ) . report. information also swabs. that i n geneticist at (R. 7 0 4 . ) Orchid, The a report that the analysis" DNA Orchid of the material s u b m i t t e d i n a c a s e a n d t h a t i t was " m a i n t a i n e d i n t h e r e g u l a r course the of business" a t Orchid. (R. 7 0 4 . ) The r e p o r t i t e m s t h a t w e r e t e s t e d a s L.M.'s o r a l s w a b , L.M.'s 5 lists vaginal CR-08-1177 s w a b , a n d L.M.'s b l o o d the analyses scientific This that sample. were conclusions included a chart The b o d y o f t h e r e p o r t performed that on were the drawn exhibiting evidence from t h e "donor details and the the analyses. profile" of the " p o s s i b l e types of t h e p r i m a r y male donor" determined from the DNA testing. signatures (CR. 2 5 8 , 2 6 0 . ) of responsibility the report." taking the two 711.) (R. 7 0 5 . ) case" He sent was clause the objection. Crawford admitted report supervisor that person overrule informed the evidence 705.) [ s i c ] i n [the case file "I believe 541 o v e r Ware's In admitting U.S. that 36 the i s present to (R. 7 0 5 , to Crawford i s s a t i s f i e d . the objection." (R. 6 708.) Angelo t h e DNA confrontation- the report, cases (2004),] present with individuals i s on t h e r e p o r t . and the taking supplied and the following and o f t h e l a b work and t h a t p r e p a r e d cross-examination, to (R. [v. Washington, if were During Kokoszka's examination, into stated: the "contains "one o f t h e f o r t h e work and h i s s i g n a t u r e report court also who individuals K o k o s z k a was D e l l a M a n n a a t t h e DFS. trial report f o r t h e work as w e l l as any d a t a responsibility instant] The Crawford, the report, subject to The C o u r t i s g o i n g CR-08-1177 Kokoszka Kokoszka course custodian reporting t o show 709.) the done "identification i n this o f t h e semen u p o n that performed were i n procedures] accordance and a l s o Kokoszka reflect personal initialed that with he h a d r e v i e w e d review meant the case." that the conclusions sheets as w e l l . " the work occurred a l lthe drawn file from to that h i s performed " i n (R. 7 1 2 . ) " [ t ] o [ h i s ] k n o w l e d g e t h e r e w e r e no e r r o r s 7 were (R. 7 1 1 . ) i n t h e case was the operating t h e c a s e a n d he s t a t e d that ofa l l they standard f i l l (R. reviewed accordance w i t h t h e g u i d e l i n e s " t h a t were i n p l a c e . He s t a t e d t h a t would He " r e v i e w e d ensure and appropriate the review that the t h e sample which [the ensured that d a t a were a c c u r a t e also "the reflects as t h e reviewer he to i n from s t a r t t o t h e case (R. 7 1 1 . ) performed file. h e was t h e checklists inside that case, t o t h e DNA t e s t i n g . " analyses the and reviewing occurred kept The c a s e f i l e i n L.M.'s c a s e Kokoszka f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d work prior actually case and that t h e ... r e v i e w t h e case what was a l s o (R. 7 1 0 . ) occurred with file L.M.'s at Orchid of these records. that regarding the case of business" culminating person out that the analysis finish, testified testified regular "all also that CR-08-1177 occurred case during file was the analysis admitted during Ware's c o n f r o n t a t i o n - c l a u s e The Orchid sent in DNA profile of the r e p o r t and f o r e n s i c b i o l o g y " and Forensic 479.) Biology DellaManna technicians the case f i l e by case." sent the (R. to him DFS DFS. 501, by repository Ala. Code received (R. 538.) Orchid t h e C o m b i n e d DNA that for that there the the were to other Index System "no 1975. from DellaManna Orchid matched Ware's 6 411, biological the procedures put errors See that DNA (R. for on in in [L.M.'s] DNA the profile contained ("CODIS"), w h i c h i s a determined expert Program DFS. profiles f o r DNA-specimen i n f o r m a t i o n . were laboratory compared k n o w n DNA DNA the Orchid a l l tests DellaManna Kokoszka, D e l l a M a n n a i s an Efforts" performed and over g e n e r a t e d by a p p r o v e d by m a t e r i a l i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e c o n t r o l s and place The examination " d i r e c t o r of the testified properly 713.) objection. to Angelo DellaManna at the Statewide (R. Kokoszka's l a b o r a t o r y t e c h n i c i a n s , and "DNA case." § the profile in nationwide 36-18-21(j), DNA in profile CODIS. 537.) B e c a u s e James Lee Ware had b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a prior f e l o n y , h i s DNA was p a r t o f t h e CODIS d a t a b a s e . See § 3 6 - 1 8 ¬ 25, A l a . Code 1975. 6 8 CR-08-1177 Pursuant match from was to routine ascertained, procedure t h e DFS storage and r e t e s t e d within CODIS a t t h e DFS, o n c e removed i t " t o ensure [was] t h e p r o f i l e p h y s i c a l sample." Ware's (R. 5 0 4 - 0 5 . ) ... that t h e DNA CODIS sample the profile associated ... with the Then, a second a n a l y s t a t t h e DFS i n d e p e n d e n t l y r e v i e w e d a n d c o m p a r e d W a r e ' s k n o w n CODIS profile t o t h e unknown DNA p r o f i l e o b t a i n e d from t h e semen t a k e n f r o m L.M.'s r a p e k i t a n d s e n t t o t h e DFS b y O r c h i d . 514.) In October swab, was t a k e n 2006, from a DNA Ware. sample, Ware's i n t h e form cheek sample t h r o u g h t h e DNA t e s t p r o c e s s i n [ t h e ] l a b o r a t o r y and t h e DNA p r o f i l e from Ware's cheek W a r e ' s CODIS p r o f i l e the semen profile ... taken known vaginal from swabs sample of rape as w e l l [L.M.]" O r c h i d ' s DNA p r o f i l e he e x p l a i n e d L.M.'s k i t . (R. 515-16.) how h e r e a c h e d h i s c o n c l u s i o n s f r o m t h e semen rape k i t . 9 cheek "r[u]n i n Alabama," created from " T h e DNA sample] a s t h e semen p r o f i l e to calculate population m a t c h e d t h e DNA e x t r a c t e d was (R. 5 1 5 . ) [ t h echeek of (R. was c o m p a r e d t o a n d t h e u n k n o w n DNA p r o f i l e t o b e f r o m Mr. Ware [ t h e ] CODIS sample DNA matched from t h e DellaManna used frequencies, and that removed Ware's from DNA L.M.'s CR-08-1177 W a r e was n o t a f f o r d e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y confront and to cross-examine the during the t r i a l Orchid laboratory t e c h n i c i a n s who p e r f o r m e d t h e t e s t u n d e r l y i n g t h e DNA report file. or the data ultimately c o l l e c t e d i n L.M.'s c a s e charged first-degree and c o n v i c t e d robbery, of profile Ware first-degree and f i r s t - d e g r e e to was burglary, rape. I. Ware Amendment against and contends right technicians the court based at Specifically, the t r i a l on Orchid Ware violated his Sixth and t o cross-examine to confront h i m when reports that witnesses admitted t h e work who that into evidence product d i d not contends were t e s t i m o n i a l i n n a t u r e court testify t h e DNA and, thus, of testimony the laboratory at the trial. profile and report that their introduction v i o l a t e d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme c o u r t d e c i s i o n s i n C r a w f o r d v. Washington, 541 Massachusetts, In "that Crawford, the Framers allowed did admission U.S. U.S. 36 (2004), and , 129 S . C t . 2527 the United States [of the S i x t h Amendment] unless v. (2009). Supreme C o u r t of t e s t i m o n i a l statements not appear a t t r i a l Melendez-Diaz would clarified not have of a witness who h e was u n a v a i l a b l e t o t e s t i f y , 10 CR-08-1177 and the defendant had cross-examination." Massachusetts, 541 U.S. States Supreme created by had Court a U.S. prior at , 129 at held S. that a Ct. for In Melendez-Diaz 53-54. opportunity v. a t 2532, the certificate a s t a t e - l a b o r a t o r y t e c h n i c i a n was c o v e r e d by the cases provide right to confrontation authority confront clause. for finding witnesses against of analysis testimonial Ware a r g u e s that United he that was and these denied the him. Preservation A. The court State were not laboratory However, on a that the is admission Clause preserved when objection" to Ware's constitutional right technicians. the on the replete of r e p o r t g e n e r a t e d by Confrontation request based record the Ware's specific technicians challenging profile suggests arguments to in with grounds. Moreover, claim to (R. 4 6 9 - 7 0 . ) that he confront The trial 11 the the DNA technicians this granted was argument regarding absent laboratory the Clause. Ware's the court trial cross-examine Confrontation a l l testimony circuit the a being Orchid court c l e a r l y issue was "standing denied his laboratory understood CR-08-1177 Ware's o b j e c t i o n as i t c o n c e r n e d h i s d e s i r e t o c o n f r o n t cross-examine the laboratory technicians. 854 So. State, 2d 1 1 7 1 , 1174 620 ( A l a .Crim. S o . 2 d 1 2 2 , 127 Webb, 5 8 6 S o . 2 d 9 5 4 , 956 So. 2d 1196, 628, 1200 122-23 2d Ex 834 preserved v. and M a r s h a l l App. 1990). 1993); 594 593 So. Ware court was aware of the grounds 594 2d 121, 570 S o . not h i s claim, but i t i s also abundantly clear v. parte So. 2d v. S t a t e , Here, Ex McCall, Pettway, State, v. S t a t e , Covington Ex p a r t e parte Felder ( A l a . Crim. 2002); C r i m . App. ( A l a .1991); ( A l a . 1991); ( A l a . 1991); App. (Ala. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991); 832, trial 631 See T o l e s and t o only that the underlying Ware's objections. B. The S t a t e a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t Ware's o b j e c t i o n t o e v i d e n c e regarding t h e DNA introduction voluntarily previously State, on introduces objected, grounds, App. report similar he same waives waived by "Where evidence to Ware's a his objection. he Bolden had v. abrogated v. State, 715 So. 2d (State's brief, at pp. 21-22.) 12 own defendant which ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) [ , Henderson 1997).]" was evidence. the 568 S o . 2 d 8 4 1 , 848 other Crim. of profile 863 ( A l a . In CR-08-1177 addition to t h e 1993 rape involving c h a r g e d w i t h t h e 1 9 9 5 r a p e o f P.D. c a s e was a " c o l d - c a s e r a p e " O r c h i d f o r DNA t e s t i n g for such case testing. because between alibi -- i n P.D.'s evidence c a l l i n g Kokoszka into k i t was s e n t t o the charges i n P.D.'s i . e . , the genetic rape match k i t a n d Ware's q u e s t i o n Ware's during direct and DellaManna testified reliability of the examination of DellaManna, received CODIS DNA a DNA p r o f i l e regarding testing. from h a d d o n e i n L.M.'s c a s e . which DellaManna minor contributor" taken from P.D. DellaManna Ware's testified crossthat O r c h i d i n P.D.'s c a s e . He i n P.D.'s c a s e j u s t Ware i n t r o d u c e d D e l l a M a n n a ' s that o f t h e DNA m i x t u r e h e r rape explained unknown donor p r o f i l e t h e accuracy and During DellaManna had stated following guilt. examination by t h e State, O r c h i d ' s r e p o r t t o draw c o n c l u s i o n s kit. also -- i n P.D.'s c a s e w a s w e a k a n d r e n d e r e d e v e n w e a k e r b y A t Ware's t r i a l , in was t h e DFS r e c e i v e d f u n d i n g dropped evidence Ware L.M.'s c a s e , P.D.'s a n d P.D.'s r a p e The S t a t e the material profile Like, i n 2004 a f t e r t h e DNA L.M., that Ware found a used as he report "potential on an o r a l swab and c o n t a i n e d i n h e r rape a comparison a n d a CODIS p r o f i l e 13 was he between disclosing an that the CR-08-1177 donor i s a " p o t e n t i a l minor c o n t r i b u t o r " i s a not as s t r o n g a comparison match. The as a comparison attempted to exploit not a high "have report was The P.D. -- as did the confidence sent a result, charges the i n f e r e n c e Ware defense of degree and, a f a c t t h a t even though DellaManna nevertheless department, of the revealing to in the W a r e was to draw was case" Tuscaloosa charged State ultimately hoped [P.D.'s] w i t h the dropped. that police DNA rape (R. 609.) evidence is fallible. The allowed the S t a t e argues to take position in a trial lab technicians i s crucial presented evidence by evidence defense he of had that (Ala. 5.) Crim. f o r the relies." over no by admission We App. agree. 1989), 14 be of of admission evidence of similar a t p. 23.) a r g u i n g t h a t "once t h e their other not absence (State's brief, evidence. o b j e c t i o n s to the a t p. not ... that the f o r the admission assertion admitted attorneys reply brief, 841 State but to this was reliability their the upon which Ware r e p l i e s 2d the on a p p e a l t h a t " [ W a r e ] s h o u l d objections, choice They but did of the not to v. appeal Ware's attack the thereby evidence." In Bolden an Mr. waive (Ware's S t a t e , 568 from DNA an So. arson CR-08-1177 conviction, regarding previous allowed This objected fires proceeds B o l d e n was c o n v i c t e d , determined t o other that already and t h e payment o f i n s u r a n c e damage c a u s e d b y t h e f i r e s . regarding dropped t h e rape testing conviction. Ware's The t r i a l court a n d he a p p e a l e d . Here, testimony heard regarding proceeds Ware was earlier to repair the introduced evidence t h e 1 9 9 5 r a p e o f P.D. i n a n a t t e m p t t o s h o w t h a t t h e DNA-testing process DNA with the objectionable testimony questions associated a t t h e home o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . the evidence. cumulative the to the State's t h e payment o f i n s u r a n c e Court fires the defense charges against had proved This, claim i s f a l l i b l e -- t o s h o w t h a t t h e S t a t e h a d that because t o be t o o u n r e l i a b l e t o o b t a i n i n turn, he s h o u l d W a r e i n P.D.'s c a s e was an attempt be a l l o w e d to a strengthen t o cross-examine the l a b o r a t o r y t e c h n i c i a n s who p e r f o r m e d t h e a c t u a l t e s t i n g o n t h e rape k i t s . cumulative as Evidence o f f e r e d under these circumstances evidence. i s not T h u s , Ware d i d n o t w a i v e h i s o b j e c t i o n argued by the State. Arguments Ware Orchid contends laboratory that t h e DNA profile report t e c h n i c i a n s , who d i d n o t a t t e n d 15 prepared by the t r i a l , CR-08-1177 was testimonial admitted into hearsay, and, evidence in Clause over h i s o b j e c t i o n . did testify, who DellaManna performed challenge the the and Kokoszka. of the erroneously Confrontation Ware a r g u e s t h a t t h e a n a l y s t s testing accuracy t e c h n i c i a n s who violation i t was and K o k o s z k a , were not t h e DNA drawn from t h e t e s t i n g , thus, that of the and DNA that he technicians was profile, the unable p e r f o r m e d t h e t e s t s by q u e s t i o n i n g of the DellaManna Crawford, Melendez-Diaz, and a Texas C o u r t o f A p p e a l s c a s e , C u a d r o s - F e r n a n d e z v. S t a t e , 316 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. App. summary o f e a c h In case Crawford, that to conclusions the honesty or the incompetence Ware a r g u e s who 2009), support h i s assertion. rape Crawford Crawford's wife, defense. Sylvia, to p o l i c e suggesting that defense, but marital privilege legislature. stabbed she brief follows. was charged attempted murder o f Kenneth Lee. to A with as Sylvia. Crawford Crawford d i d not testify defined assault Lee had a l l e g e d l y a witness to the a s s a u l t , d i d not the at by the attempted claimed gave a s t a b Lee trial and self- statement in pursuant Washington self- to state However, i n o r d e r t o p r o v e t h a t C r a w f o r d had the v i c t i m i n self-defense 16 as he claimed, the the not State CR-08-1177 s o u g h t t o i n t r o d u c e s t a t e m e n t s t h a t S y l v i a h a d made d u r i n g h e r interrogation by the police. The defense claimed that the i n t r o d u c t i o n of Sylvia's statements v i o l a t e d the Confrontation Clause because Crawford Court statement i s Sylvia under the held could that testimonial, Confrontation unavailable and the not be where a witness's as S y l v i a ' s , Clause defendant cross-examine the witness, cross-examined. had a out-of-court i t should unless the prior t h e common opportunity court. 5 4 1 U.S. a t 68 448 U.S. 56 law required: (1980)(before d e p e n d e d on t h e r e l i a b i l i t y reliable statements previous cross-examination) affected by testimonial "testimonial" evidence. was t a k e n to Amendment unavailability Crawford, and a Ohio v. admissibility o f t h e o u t - o f - c o u r t statements and d i d not require Crawford. i s ("Where p r i o r opportunity f o rcross-examination.")(overruling Roberts, barred witness t e s t i m o n i a l evidence i s a t i s s u e , however, t h e S i x t h what be regardless o f whether the statement i s deemed r e l i a b l e b y t h e t r i a l demands The . the opportunity Nontestimonial Crawford However, step i n Melendez-Diaz. 17 e v i d e n c e was n o t d i d not attempt a for a toward to define defining CR-08-1177 In Melendez-Diaz, distributing tested two Melendez-Diaz and t r a f f i c k i n g c o c a i n e . materials believed charged cocaine be technician determined t h e y were cocaine. that was executed materials were certificates of were c o c a i n e and sworn to before a technician and u s e d as p r o o f o f t r a f f i c k i n g . then the The "The by cocaine technician attesting weights. notary public State Laboratory Institute weighed analysis their with A laboratory that later The to was that certificates technicians at ch. 111, S.Ct. § a t 2531. 13." Melendez-Diaz, Melendez-Diaz certificates of required technicians the objection, analysis the into composition, analyzed.' U.S. analysis, trial quality, , 129 Melendez-Diaz Appeals and M a s s . Gen. at Court of arguing to as was that testify at Gen. , admitted "'prima ch. at 111, Crawford, in person. the facie the net weight Laws, S.Ct. U.S. of 129 objected to the admission of the court evidence the of the Massachusetts Department P u b l i c H e a l t h , as r e q u i r e d u n d e r M a s s a c h u s e t t s l a w . Mass. Laws, the supra, Over certificates evidence his of of the of the n a r c o t i c ... § 13." Melendez-Diaz, 2531. convicted, Massachusetts 18 and rejected he appealed. his The confrontation- CR-08-1177 clause argument and a f f i r m e d h i s conviction, " r e l y i n g on t h e M a s s a c h u s e t t s Supreme J u d i c i a l C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n that the authors of c e r t i f i c a t e s subject to Melendez-Diaz, In as confrontation U.S. a 5-4 d e c i s i o n , at ... w h i c h of forensic analysis under the Sixth held are not Amendment." , 129 S . C t . a t 2 5 3 1 . the United States Supreme C o u r t found follows: "The d o c u m e n t s a t i s s u e h e r e , w h i l e d e n o m i n a t e d by Massachusetts law 'certificates,' are quite plainly affidavits: 'declaration[s] of facts w r i t t e n down a n d s w o r n t o b y t h e d e c l a r a n t b e f o r e a n o f f i c e r authorized to administer oaths. B l a c k ' s Law Dictionary 62 (8th ed. 2004). They are incontrovertibly a '"solemn declaration or a f f i r m a t i o n made f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f e s t a b l i s h i n g o r p r o v i n g some f a c t . " ' C r a w f o r d [ v . W a s h i n g t o n , 541 U.S. 3 6 , ] a t 5 1 , 124 S . C t . 1354 [ ( 2 0 0 4 ) ] , (quoting 2 N. W e b s t e r , A n A m e r i c a n D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e E n g l i s h Language (1828)). The f a c t i n q u e s t i o n i s t h a t t h e substance found i n the possession of Melendez-Diaz and h i s codefendants was, as the prosecution claimed, cocaine -the precise testimony the a n a l y s t s w o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o p r o v i d e i f called at trial. The 'certificates' are functionally identical to live, in-court testimony, doing 'precisely what a witness does on direct e x a m i n a t i o n . ' D a v i s v . W a s h i n g t o n , 547 U.S. 8 1 3 , 830, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) (emphasis d e l e t e d ) . "Here, moreover, n o t o n l y were t h e a f f i d a v i t s '"made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the s t a t e m e n t w o u l d be a v a i l a b l e f o r u s e a t a l a t e r t r i a l , " ' C r a w f o r d , s u p r a , a t 5 2 , 124 S . C t . 1 3 5 4 , b u t 19 CR-08-1177 under Massachusetts law the s o l e purpose of the a f f i d a v i t s was t o p r o v i d e 'prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e of the c o m p o s i t i o n , q u a l i t y , and t h e n e t w e i g h t ' o f t h e a n a l y z e d s u b s t a n c e , Mass. Gen. Laws, c h . 111, § 13. We c a n s a f e l y a s s u m e t h a t t h e a n a l y s t s w e r e a w a r e o f the affidavits' e v i d e n t i a r y purpose, since that purpose -- a s s t a t e d i n the relevant state-law provision -was reprinted on the affidavits themselves. See A p p . t o P e t . f o r C e r t . 2 5 a , 2 7 a , 29a. "In s h o r t , under our d e c i s i o n i n C r a w f o r d the a n a l y s t s ' a f f i d a v i t s were t e s t i m o n i a l s t a t e m e n t s , and t h e a n a l y s t s were ' w i t n e s s e s ' f o r purposes of the S i x t h Amendment. Absent a showing that the a n a l y s t s were u n a v a i l a b l e t o t e s t i f y a t t r i a l and that petitioner had a prior opportunity to c r o s s - e x a m i n e t h e m , p e t i t i o n e r was e n t i t l e d t o '"be confronted with"' the analysts at t r i a l . Crawford, s u p r a , a t 5 4 , 124 S . C t . 1 3 5 4 . " Melendez-Diaz, 2532. U.S. Moreover, scientific , testing" 129 S.Ct. cross-examination "honesty, U.S. at , 129 the majority exempt f r o m t h e r i s k at at S.Ct. a t opinion argument, n o t i n g would 2537. be majority in testing p r o f i c i e n c y , and methodology." , arguments were 129 S.Ct. at 2538. "neutral Melendez-Diaz, The useful the f o r e n s i c evidence i s not of manipulation. at rejected In r e j e c t e d by t h e m a j o r i t y U.S. reasoned the analyst's Melendez-Diaz, sum, the following i n Melendez-Diaz: "(1) a n a l y s t s were not removed from c o v e r a g e of C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e on t h e o r y t h a t t h e y w e r e n o t 'accusatory' witnesses; 20 that CR-08-1177 "(2) a n a l y s t s were n o t removed from c o v e r a g e o f C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e on t h e o r y t h a t t h e y w e r e n o t conventional witnesses; "(3) a n a l y s t s were n o t removed from c o v e r a g e o f C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e on t h e o r y t h a t t h e i r testimony consisted of n e u t r a l , s c i e n t i f i c t e s t i n g ; "(4) c e r t i f i c a t e s o f a n a l y s i s were n o t removed f r o m c o v e r a g e o f C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e on t h e o r y t h a t t h e y were a k i n t o o f f i c i a l and b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s ; and "(5) d e f e n d a n t ' s a b i l i t y t o subpoena a n a l y s t s d i d not o b v i a t e s t a t e ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o produce a n a l y s t s for cross-examination." 45 No. 6 C r i m i n a l Law B u l l e t i n However, it clear A r t . 6. J u s t i c e Thomas, t h e m a j o r i t y ' s i n h i s concurring opinion that Melendez-Diaz because the c e r t i f i c a t e an affidavit that he Clause as "adhered testimonial. as i n formalized affidavits, depositions, (quoting (opinion Melendez-Diaz, White concurring Specifically, However, [his]p o s i t i o n that are contained confessions.'" 2543 to was v. i n part J u s t i c e Thomas and 502 21 'the concur i n he stated Confrontation testimonial materials, prior at U.S. concurring stated: made statements only i n s o f a r U.S. Illinois, could vote, o f a n a l y s i s a t i s s u e was i s i m p l i c a t e d by e x t r a j u d i c i a l they such and thus he fifth testimony, or , 129 S . C t . a t 34 6, in 365 (1992 ) judgment)). CR-08-1177 "I j o i n the Court's o p i n i o n i n t h i s case because the documents at i s s u e i n t h i s case 'are q u i t e p l a i n l y affidavits,' [Melendez-Diaz, U.S. at , 129 S.Ct. a t 2532]. As s u c h , t h e y ' f a l l w i t h i n t h e c o r e c l a s s o f t e s t i m o n i a l s t a t e m e n t s ' g o v e r n e d by the C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e . [ W h i t e v . I l l i n o i s , 502 U.S. 346, 365, (1992)] (internal quotation marks omitted)." Melendez-Diaz, U.S. at , 129 S.Ct. a t 2543 (Thomas, J . concurring). In case, Cuadros-Fernandez v. broadly interpreted Fernandez's technician argument was that State, a Texas Melendez-Diaz the testimonial. work age, whom theory was against a cabinet. to that kitchen c a b i n e t door cabinet. the broken Southwest According to DNA babysitting. the taken As p a r t was of support of a Cuadros-Fernandez Cuadros-Fernandez the the was Cuadros-Fernandez the broken removed she to product w i t h t h e c a p i t a l m u r d e r o f a c h i l d who of Court was Concisely, slammed the the used masking tape and for Forensic Sciences report the from the masking 22 DNA analysis, tape to a broke the to repair the police ("SWIFS"). SWIFS DNA head delivered i t Institute of State's so, tape years victim's i n doing masking charged l e s s t h a n two of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , c a b i n e t and Cuadros- laboratory and, had Appeals compared analysis of CR-08-1177 C u a d r o s - F e r n a n d e z , and S.W.3d a t 652. i t was a match. Cuadros-Fernandez, Specifically: "The r e p o r t a n d m o s t o f t h e n o t e s a t t a c h e d t o the r e p o r t were p r e p a r e d by K e r r i Kwist, a DNA a n a l y s t w i t h SWIFS. K w i s t d i d n o t t e s t i f y a t t r i a l . I n s t e a d , the State i n t r o d u c e d i t s e x h i b i t 8 ['the e x p e r t r e p o r t and n o t e s c o n c e r n i n g a n a l y s i s o f t h e c a b i n e t d o o r f o r DNA,'] t h r o u g h t h e t e s t i m o n y of Andra K r i c k , a t r a c e - e v i d e n c e a n a l y s t at SWIFS. K r i c k t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was p r e s e n t when t h e DNA samples were c o l l e c t e d . Krick also t e s t i f i e d that she was a c u s t o d i a n of records f o r SWIFS, the documents i n e x h i b i t 8 were b u s i n e s s records of SWIFS k e p t i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s of S W I F S , t h e e n t r i e s on t h o s e r e c o r d s w e r e p r e p a r e d i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s b y an e m p l o y e e o f SWIFS w i t h p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e e v e n t s o r a c t s r e c o r d e d , a n d t h e r e c o r d s w e r e made a t o r n e a r t h e time of the event r e c o r d e d . K r i c k was not a DNA a n a l y s t , s h e d i d n o t p e r f o r m a n y o f t h e DNA testing, a n d s h e c o u l d n o t t e s t i f y t o w h e t h e r t h e DNA testing was p e r f o r m e d p r o p e r l y . " Cuadros-Fernandez, 316 S.W.3d a t 654 (footnote omitted). "Exhibit 8 included Kwist's report describing the evidence t e s t e d , the r e s u l t s of the testing, K w i s t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s ( w h i c h a p p e a r t o be s u m m a r i e s o f the results), the statistical analysis of the results c o m p a r i n g t h e DNA profiles found i n the t e s t i n g to the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n , the d i s p o s i t i o n of the evidence, the a d d i t i o n a l comment t h a t an u n k n o w n DNA p r o f i l e f o u n d on t h e swab o f t h e t a p e w o u l d be e n t e r e d i n t h e C o m b i n e d DNA Index System, a n d a t a b l e o f t h e DNA p r o f i l e s of the evidence tested. The exhibit a l s o c o n t a i n s many p a g e s of graphs apparently concerning the testing, some c o n t a i n i n g h a n d w r i t t e n n o t a t i o n s , and a l l i n i t i a l e d 'KK'; h a n d - w r i t t e n c h a r t s a p p a r e n t l y c o n c e r n i n g t h e t e s t i n g ; forms s e t t i n g out the c h a i n of c u s t o d y of 23 316 CR-08-1177 the e v i d e n c e ; forms l i s t i n g t h e evidence s u b m i t t e d and t h e a n a l y s i s r e q u e s t e d ; memoranda o f t e l e p h o n e c a l l s b e t w e e n K r i c k a n d D e t e c t i v e Adams a n d b e t w e e n K w i s t and K r i c k c o n c e r n i n g what e v i d e n c e t h e S t a t e w a n t e d t e s t e d ; a n d a memorandum f r o m D e t e c t i v e Adams to 'Examiner' b r i e f l y d e s c r i b i n g t h e case t o e x p l a i n why t h e S t a t e w a n t e d t h e c a b i n e t d o o r a n d t h e t a p e t e s t e d f o r DNA." Cuadros-Fernandez, 316 Cuadros-Fernandez the grounds examination Clause that objected Kwist and t h a t , couched not have been omitted). of exhibit present Confrontation report t o be and Melendez-Diaz, 8 on f o rcross- theConfrontation i n the form and Clause the testimonial, Texas Court of found 24 [was] a t 6 5 7 . "The not subject to simply those document procedures." Finding that Court had been preparing thereport f o r t r i a l , affidavit, [were] they t h e Texas of appeals an 3 1 6 S.W.3d 3 1 6 S.W.3d a t 6 5 8 . the Confrontation Clause The of because results t h e Texas Court o f t h e DNA r e p o r t i n t h i s that laboratory reports Cuadros-Fernandez, was should Cuadros-Fernandez, argue[d] procedures that (footnote to the admission t h e i s s u e as "whether although testimonial." the 655 was v i o l a t e d . Appeals State at thus, i n h e r absence, R e l y i n g on C r a w f o r d case, S.W.3d t h e DNA of Appeals ruled violated. t h a t K w i s t knew t h a t s h e she read t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g CR-08-1177 detective's n o t e s s t a t i n g t h a t h e r f i n d i n g s w o u l d be to the d i s t r i c t theory of attorney the crime, she knew and presented o f t h e DNA r e s u l t s a n d was p r e s e n t e d in-person testimony Cuadros-Fernandez, the held Texas Court that report prospect the the Id- as a s u b s t i t u t e DNA testing." As i n M e l e n d e z - D i a z , of the analyst [Melendez-Diaz,] place.' evidence argument and i s necessary to a n a l y s t s who may b e i n c o m p e t e n t o r of confrontation first was t h e the only rejected the State's the "confrontation dishonest. was 3 1 6 S.W.3d a t 6 5 8 . p e r m i t defendants t o expose even itself concerning of Appeals the detective's Cuadros-Fernandez suspect, for "[t]he and notes e x p r e s s i n g reported will a t 2536-37. deter Moreover, 'the fraudulent a t 2537." analysis i n Cuadros-Fernandez, 316 S.W.3d a t 6 5 8 . Analysis Ware argues i n his brief Cuadros-Fernandez Kokoszka was because "the analyst testing." (Ware's this to follow Court Fernandez. Ware brief, like who that h i s case Krick, neither actually a t p . 31.) the rationale asserts: 25 i s similar to DellaManna nor performed Therefore, set forth t h e DNA Ware urges i n Cuadros- CR-08-1177 "The r e p o r t s t h a t Mr. D e l l a M a n n a r e l i e d u p o n t o r e a c h h i s c o n c l u s i o n s w e r e u s e d t o do p r e c i s e l y w h a t a w i t n e s s d o e s on d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n . W i t h o u t the r e s u l t s o f t h o s e r e p o r t s , Mr. D e l l a M a n n a c o u l d not have made the physical connection between the genetic profiles found i n the rape k i t s and the g e n e t i c p r o f i l e o f Mr. W a r e . fi "... W i t h o u t t h e r e s u l t s g e n e r a t e d by Orchid Mr. DellaManna would have had nothing to c o m p a r e t o Mr. Ware's p r o f i l e and c o u l d not have i d e n t i f i e d him, o r a n y o n e f o r t h a t m a t t e r , as a suspect." (Ware's b r i e f , at pp. 32, Ware c o n t e n d s t h a t alleged Kokoszka's constitutional error. supervised the "responsibility laboratory was to [laboratory technicians] argues 33-34.) that, even t e s t i m o n y d i d not Kokoszka i n the the the that he testified technicians review cure data laboratory." and that generated (R. 714.) though " [ K o k o s z k a ] was e m p l o y e d w i t h O r c h i d ... a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t e s t i n g , D r . K o k o s z k a n e v e r t h e l e s s was still n o t t h e a n a l y s t who p e r f o r m e d t h e t e s t s . S i m i l a r t o t h e t e s t i f y i n g e x p e r t i n C u a d r o s - F e r n a n d e z , he had a supervisory role and was a custodian of the r e c o r d s , b u t he was n o t t h e a n a l y s t . Dr. K o k o s z k a ' s ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was t o r e v i e w t h e d a t a g e n e r a t e d b y o t h e r s i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y . ' (R. a t 7 1 4 . ) " (Ware's b r i e f , at pp. 34-35.) 26 his by Ware CR-08-1177 The State profile r e p o r t was Appeals in Fernandez and, cannot The not on appeal thus, be State by arguing t e s t i m o n i a l and Cuadros-Fernandez Melendez-Diaz case. responds cited asserts as to the the the persuasive that the DNA t h a t the Texas Court misconstrued according that holding State, in Cuadros- authority in Texas Court of Ware's reached " i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t [ t h e e v i d e n c e was] t e s t i m o n i a l based on certain factors indicating that the p r e p a r e r knew t h a t i t r e l a t e d t o a c r i m i n a l c a s e a n d t h u s t h a t s h e m i g h t be a s k e d t o t e s t i f y a t trial. This i s s i m p l y not the h o l d i n g i n M e l e n d e z - D i a z. B e c a u s e t h e r e p o r t i n C u a d r o s - F e r n a n d e z was n o t an a f f i d a v i t or a n o t h e r type of f o r m a l i z e d t e s t i m o n i a l m a t e r i a l , i t i s not t e s t i m o n i a l under M e l e n d e z - D i a z , and t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e T e x a s c o u r t i s i n c o r r e c t . " (State's b r i e f , in a t p. Melendez-Diaz opinion, provided 32.) The Justice the State Thomas, majority's stated, J u s t i c e Thomas c o n c u r r e d t h a t he j o i n e d the Court's at issue S.Ct] the of testimonial omitted)." that concurring As vote. a previously documents 129 Clause. fact o p i n i o n o n l y "because the [Melendez-Diaz, Confrontation fifth wrote the asserting case class who on i n Melendez-Diaz, this core in relies 'are quite a t 2 5 3 2 . As Ibid. Melendez-Diaz, such, they affidavits,' 'fall statements' governed (internal within quotation U.S. 27 plainly at , 129 S.Ct. by the marks at 2543 CR-08-1177 (Thomas, J . , c o n c u r r i n g ) . was necessary State, "means to obtain that confrontation J u s t i c e Thomas's c o n c u r r i n g a majority, the actual holding clause pertains only and, opinion according to the of the case i s t h a t the to the statements i n the p a r t i c u l a r f o r m s i n c l u d e d i n J u s t i c e Thomas's l i s t . " (State's brief, Justice at Thomas's p. 32.) Giles (2008), and Davis by against v. California, the and stated and that defendant" the was relationship the r u l e against 5 J . Wigmore, E v i d e n c e 1974), 554 v. Washington, Scalia, understanding that is a reference U.S. Justice Harlan 353, 547 U.S. h i s s p e c i a l w r i t i n g i n White, Justice Clause "list" the the "witnesses against strictest 'witnesses confront reading meaning i n Dutton against him' t o confer and c r o s s - e x a m i n e only 28 be Justice v. Evans, "witnesses inquiry in Confrontation Thomas 400 construed noted construe witnesses U.S. 74 the phrase strictest on a d e f e n d a n t those joined ( J . Chadbourn r e v . i n the to S . C t . 2 678 of the § 1 3 9 7 , p . 159 346 (2006). critical hearsay. would 128 813 between the defendant" 502 U.S. J u s t i c e Thomas, (197 0 ) ( H a r l a n , J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n r e s u l t ) , "The to s p e c i a l w r i t i n g s i n White v. I l l i n o i s , (1992 ) , In The the sense. phrase the right to who actually CR-08-1177 appear and t e s t i f y 359 (Thomas, judgment). creates J . , concurring White v. I l l i n o i s , i n part with a long reasons, of the right line Wigmore-Harlan J . , concurring Justice historical sources Thomas i n the to i t since reading i s i n part opined For those may b e an and c o n c u r r i n g i n White that decisions "[t]he i n part reading federal i n the "[r]elevant ... suggest Clause than the 1 9 8 0 may w e l l b e c o r r e c t . " narrow improper W h i t e , 502 U.S. a t of the [Confrontation] A more that a t common l a w a n d Clause." U.S. a t 361 ( T h o m a s , J . , c o n c u r r i n g judgment). surrounding precedent a n d o u r own e a r l i e r that a narrower reading one g i v e n Court's of the Confrontation (Thomas, judgment). of confrontation of t h i s the pure construction Clause and c o n c u r r i n g " t e n s i o n w i t h much o f t h e a p p a r e n t h i s t o r y evolution the 502 U.S. a t J u s t i c e Thomas o p i n e d t h a t t h e W i g m o r e - H a r l a n v i e w the 360 at t r i a l . " White, 502 and c o n c u r r i n g i n of the Confrontation constitutional right of confrontation e x t e n d s t o a n y w i t n e s s who a c t u a l l y t e s t i f i e s a t trial, the but extrajudicial formalized depositions, Confrontation Clause i s implicated by s t a t e m e n t s o n l y i n s o f a r as t h e y a r e c o n t a i n e d i n testimonial prior materials, testimony, such as or confessions." 29 affidavits, White, 502 CR-08-1177 U.S. the a t 365 (Thomas, judgment). other than Confrontation J . , concurring We w i l l to not d e t a i l acknowledge Claus the as r e c i t e d i n part and c o n c u r r i n g the e n t i r e d i s c u s s i o n historical by J u s t i c e origin of Thomas: "In 16th-century England, magistrates interrogated the prisoner, accomplices, and others prior to trial. These i n t e r r o g a t i o n s were ' i n t e n d e d o n l y f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n of the c o u r t . The p r i s o n e r h a d no r i g h t t o be, and p r o b a b l y n e v e r was, p r e s e n t . ' 1 J. S t e p h e n , A H i s t o r y o f t h e C r i m i n a l Law o f E n g l a n d 221 ( 1 8 8 3 ) . A t t h e t r i a l i t s e l f , ' p r o o f was u s u a l l y given by reading depositions, confessions of accomplices, letters, and the like; and this o c c a s i o n e d f r e q u e n t demands b y t h e p r i s o n e r t o h a v e his "accusers," i . e . , the witnesses against him, brought b e f o r e him face to f a c e . . . . ' I d . , a t 326. See a l s o 5 [ J . ] W i g m o r e , [ E v i d e n c e ] § 1364 , a t 13 [(J. C h a d b o u r n r e v . 1974 ) ] ( ' [ T ] h e r e was ... no a p p r e c i a t i o n at a l l of the n e c e s s i t y of c a l l i n g a p e r s o n t o t h e s t a n d as a w i t n e s s ' ; r a t h e r , i t was common p r a c t i c e t o o b t a i n ' i n f o r m a t i o n b y c o n s u l t i n g informed persons not c a l l e d into court'); 9 W. H o l d s w o r t h , H i s t o r y o f E n g l i s h Law 2 2 7 - 2 2 9 ( 3 d e d . 1944). The i n f a m o u s t r i a l o f S i r W a l t e r R a l e i g h on charges of treason i n 1603 i n w h i c h t h e Crown's p r i m a r y e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t h i m was t h e c o n f e s s i o n o f an alleged co-conspirator (the c o n f e s s i o n was repudiated before trial and probably had been o b t a i n e d by t o r t u r e ) i s a w e l l - k n o w n example o f t h i s feature of E n g l i s h c r i m i n a l procedure. See P o l l i t t , The R i g h t o f C o n f r o n t a t i o n : I t s H i s t o r y and Modern D r e s s , 8 J.Pub.L. 381, 388-389 (1959); 1 Stephen, s u p r a , a t 333-336; 9 H o l d s w o r t h , s u p r a , a t 216-217, 226-228. "Apparently i n response to such abuses, a common-law r i g h t o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e g a n t o d e v e l o p in England during the l a t e 1 6 t h and e a r l y 1 7 t h 30 in here, the CR-08-1177 c e n t u r i e s . 5 Wigmore, s u p r a , § 1364, a t 23; P o l l i t t , supra, at 389-390. J u s t i c e S t o r y b e l i e v e d t h a t the S i x t h A m e n d m e n t c o d i f i e d some o f t h i s common l a w , 3 J . S t o r y , C o m m e n t a r i e s on t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s 662 ( 1 8 3 3 ) , and t h i s C o u r t p r e v i o u s l y has r e c o g n i z e d t h e common-law o r i g i n s o f t h e r i g h t , s e e S a l i n g e r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 272 U.S. 542, 548 (1926) ('The right of confrontation did not o r i g i n a t e w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n i n t h e S i x t h Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions'). The C o u r t c o n s i s t e n t l y h a s i n d i c a t e d that the primary purpose of the Clause was to p r e v e n t t h e a b u s e s t h a t h a d o c c u r r e d i n E n g l a n d . See M a t t o x v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 156 U.S. 2 3 7 , 2 4 2 , 15 S.Ct. 337, 339 (1895) ('The primary object of the [ C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e ] was t o p r e v e n t d e p o s i t i o n s o r e x p a r t e a f f i d a v i t s , s u c h as w e r e s o m e t i m e s a d m i t t e d i n c i v i l cases, being used a g a i n s t the p r i s o n e r i n l i e u o f a p e r s o n a l e x a m i n a t i o n and cross-examination o f t h e w i t n e s s . . . ' ) ; C a l i f o r n i a v . G r e e n , 399 U.S. [ 1 4 9 ] , a t 156 [(1 9 7 0 ) ] ( ' I t i s s u f f i c i e n t to note t h a t the p a r t i c u l a r v i c e t h a t gave impetus t o the confrontation c l a i m was the p r a c t i c e of trying d e f e n d a n t s on ' e v i d e n c e ' which c o n s i s t e d s o l e l y of ex p a r t e a f f i d a v i t s o r d e p o s i t i o n s s e c u r e d by the examining magistrates, thus denying the defendant the opportunity to challenge his accuser in a f a c e - t o - f a c e encounter i n f r o n t of the trier of f a c t ' ) ; i d . , a t 179 (Harlan, J., concurring) ('From t h e s c a n t i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e i t may tentatively be c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e was m e a n t to constitutionalize a barrier against flagrant a b u s e s , t r i a l s by anonymous a c c u s e r s , and absentee w i t n e s s e s ' ) ; D u t t o n v . E v a n s , 400 U.S. [ 7 4 ] , a t 94 [(1970)] (Harlan, J . , concurring in result) (the 'paradigmatic evil the Confrontation Clause was a i m e d a t ' was ' t r i a l by a f f i d a v i t ' ) . " White, 502 concurring U.S. a t 361-62 i n the (Thomas, J . , c o n c u r r i n g judgment). in part J u s t i c e Thomas c o n c l u d e d 31 and that CR-08-1177 " [ I ] t i spossible to i n t e r p r e t the Confrontation Clause along the lines suggested by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n a manner t h a t i s f a i t h f u l t o b o t h t h e provision's text and history. One possible formulation i s as follows: The federal c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n e x t e n d s t o any witness who a c t u a l l y t e s t i f i e s a t t r i a l , but the C o n f r o n t a t i o n Clause i s i m p l i c a t e d by e x t r a j u d i c i a l s t a t e m e n t s o n l y i n s o f a r as t h e y a r e c o n t a i n e d i n formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions . I t was t h i s d i s c r e t e category of t e s t i m o n i a l m a t e r i a l s t h a t was h i s t o r i c a l l y a b u s e d by p r o s e c u t o r s a s a means o f d e p r i v i n g c r i m i n a l defendants of the b e n e f i t of the adversary process, s e e , e . g . , M a t t o x v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 156 U.S. [ 2 3 7 ] , at 242-243 [(1895),] and under t h i s approach, t h e Confrontation Clause would n o t be c o n s t r u e d to e x t e n d b e y o n d t h e h i s t o r i c a l e v i l t o w h i c h i t was directed. " S u c h an a p p r o a c h w o u l d b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e vast m a j o r i t y of our cases, since v i r t u a l l y a l l of t h e m d e c i d e d b e f o r e O h i o v . R o b e r t s [ , 448 U.S. 56 (1980)]; i n v o l v e d p r i o r testimony or confessions, e x a c t l y the type of f o r m a l i z e d t e s t i m o n i a l evidence that l i e s at the core of the C o n f r o n t a t i o n Clause's concern." White, 502 U.S. a t 365 (Thomas, J . , concurring i n part c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e judgment)(emphasis added; f o o t n o t e In Davis v. Thomas d i s s e n t e d Indiana, decided espoused No. with Washington, from 05-5705, Davis. i n White 547 U.S. 813 (2006), t h e d e c i s i o n as i t c o n c e r n e d which case Justice consolidated Thomas and acknowledged 32 was that adhered to and omitted). Justice Hammon v . with and h i s view some e n c o u n t e r s with CR-08-1177 police in are sufficiently nature. formalized He r e i t e r a t e d h i s view i n order t o be t e s t i m o n i a l as f o l l o w s : "[T]he statements regulated by t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e must i n c l u d e ' e x t r a j u d i c i a l s t a t e m e n t s ... contained i n f o r m a l i z e d t e s t i m o n i a l m a t e r i a l s , such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions.' White, supra, a t 365 ( o p i n i o n o f THOMAS, J . ) . A f f i d a v i t s , depositions, and p r i o r testimony a r e , by t h e i r very nature, taken through a formalized process. Likewise, confessions, when extracted by p o l i c e i n a formal manner, carry sufficient indicia of solemnity to constitute formalized statements and, a c c o r d i n g l y , bear a ' s t r i k i n g resemblance,' C r a w f o r d , s u p r a , a t 52 t o the e x a m i n a t i o n s o f t h e accused and a c c u s e r s under t h e M a r i a n [ ] s t a t u t e s . See g e n e r a l l y [ J . ] L a n g b e i n , [The O r i g i n s o f A d v e r s a r y C r i m i n a l T r i a l 4 1 ] a t 2 1 ¬ 34 [(2003)]." 7 Davis v. Washington, Again specially, writings 547 U.S. a t 8 3 6 - 3 7 . i n Giles adhering i n White v. California, t o the views and Davis. Justice espoused Thomas wrote i n his special 8 The M a r i a n s t a t u t e s were c r e a t e d i n E n g l a n d i n 1554-1555 by Queen M a r y . John Langbein. The O r i g i n s of Public P r o s e c u t i o n a t Common Law ( 1 9 7 3 ) . F a c u l t y S c h o l a r s h i p S e r i e s . P a p e r 539. The M a r i a n s t a t u t e s c o n s i s t e d o f a b a i l s t a t u t e a n d a ... c o m m i t m e n t s t a t u t e . I n t h e most c o n c i s e terms, under t h e M a r i a n commitment s t a t u t e , t h e j u s t i c e o f t h e p e a c e g a t h e r e d i n f o r m a t i o n from an a c c u s e r and p r e s e n t e d i t a g a i n s t the accused a t t r i a l . The a c c u s e r d i d n o t h a v e t o b e p r e s e n t . Id. 7 On F e b r u a r y 2 8 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s r e l e a s e d i t s d e c i s i o n i n Michigan v. Bryant, S.Ct. 1143 (2011). Concisely, the majority 8 33 Supreme C o u r t U.S. , 131 held that the CR-08-1177 The question before Fernandez , i s whether although nature. Court not In finds i n the Magyari the form Court, DNA of as profile an affidavit, this question in persuasive the rational and is 63 M.J. not 123 i t was report answering S t a t e s v. M a g y a r i , in this in in this the negative, holding on in The and this case, is testimonial (C.A.A.F. 2 0 0 6 ) . binding Cuadros- Court in this United decision has no p r e c e d e n t i a l v a l u e b e c a u s e i t i s n o t an o p i n i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t . However, even though we are not relying on i t s t a t e m e n t s o f a s h o o t i n g v i c t i m , A n t h o n y C o v i n g t o n , made t o p o l i c e as C o v i n g t o n l a y d y i n g on t h e g r o u n d o f a p a r k i n g l o t was not t e s t i m o n i a l because the "'primary purpose of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n ' was ' t o e n a b l e p o l i c e a s s i s t a n c e t o meet an o n g o i n g e m e r g e n c y , ' D a v i s , 547 U.S., a t 822." M i c h i g a n v. Bryant, U.S. a t , 131 S . C t . a t 1 1 5 0 . Adhering to h i s p r e v i o u s s p e c i a l w r i t i n g s , J u s t i c e Thomas c o n c u r r e d i n t h e judgment s t a t i n g : "Rather than attempting to r e c o n s t r u c t the 'primary purpose' of the p a r t i c i p a n t s , I would c o n s i d e r the extent to which the i n t e r r o g a t i o n resembles those h i s t o r i c a l p r a c t i c e s that the C o n f r o n t a t i o n Clause addressed. ... T h i s i n t e r r o g a t i o n b e a r s l i t t l e i f any r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l p r a c t i c e s t h a t t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n Clause aimed t o e l i m i n a t e . Covington thus did not 'bea[r] testimony' against [the defendant], Crawford, supra, at 51 and the i n t r o d u c t i o n of h i s statements at t r i a l d i d not i m p l i c a t e the C o n f r o n t a t i o n Clause." M i c h i g a n v. Bryant, U.S. , 131 34 S.Ct. at 1167. CR-08-1177 for i t s precedential Magyari in a d d r e s s i n g the nature issue f o r purposes and incorporate this opinion, acknowledge This, value, of that will State's argument testimonial was that i.e., affidavits. S.Ct. At 2543 believe the decision. on that Thus, was decided the in United addressed States whether sufficiently in the facts similar t h e N a v y , was submitted a urine a in sample. effect. We also Melendez-Diaz. we agree w i t h the definition of testimonial U.S. materials, at , T h e r e f o r e , we affects laboratory form in the 129 do not Magyari Court has not technician's of a report rather i s testimonial i n nature for clause. Magyari to those here. randomly analysis below, Supreme recorded i n the of the c o n f r o n t a t i o n clause Melendez-Diaz Melendez-Diaz in quoted because to formalized analysis i s testimonial before Melendez-Diaz, the data entries Although issue, precedential t h a n i n t h e f o r m o f an a f f i d a v i t , purposes evidence (Thomas, J . , c o n c u r r i n g ) . decision specifically routine See the confrontation consequence limited with have Magyari h o w e v e r , i s o f no agree whether the i t s language which we chosen In l i e u 35 are unique, they Magyari, a petty f o r drug screening. are officer Magyari o f h i s name, t h e s a m p l e was CR-08-1177 assigned along w i t h 200 o t h e r u r i n e s a m p l e s . sample lab a laboratory identification and r e l e a s e o f t h e t e s t personnel Magyari, handled 63 M . J . a t 1 2 4 . f o r methamphetamine." of and/or methamphetamine, violation by v. Magyari, Magyari review tested receipt ofthe approximately twenty [Magyari's] sample petitioned positive (2000)." States NMCCA Justice I d . H i s c o n v i c t i o n was Navy-Marine Corps Court of See U n i t e d S t a t e s (NM.Ct.Crim.App. 2000). and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Armed F o r c e s granted of the following 9801499, substance, i n Code o f M i l i t a r y i n an u n p u b l i s h e d o p i n i o n . No. sample." "tested III controlled 112(a), Uniform the United Criminal Appeals tested I d . He was " c o n v i c t e d o f w r o n g f u l u s e ( U C M J ) , 10 U.S.C. § 9 1 2 ( a ) affirmed and then "Between results, Magyari's a schedule of A r t i c l e number issue: "WHETHER, I N L I G H T OF CRAWFORD v . WASHINGTON, 5 4 1 U.S. 3 6 , 124 S . C t . 1354 , 158 L . E d . 2 d 177 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , [ M a g y a r i ] WAS DENIED H I S S I X T H AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM WHERE THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE C O N S I S T E D S O L E L Y OF A P P E L L A N T ' S POSITIVE URINALYSIS." Id. "The Government called four witnesses to introduce the evidence contained i n the l a b report. The G o v e r n m e n t c a l l e d t h r e e w i t n e s s e s s t a t i o n e d a t 36 CR-08-1177 C O M S U B P A C [ ] i n H a w a i i , who w e r e i n v o l v e d i n t h e initial collection of [Magyari's] urine sample. These w i t n e s s e s i n c l u d e d : Sonar T e c h n i c i a n C h i e f M i c h a e l S. S z y m o n i k , t h e u r i n a l y s i s c o o r d i n a t o r , Chief Operations Specialist Steve Hapeman, t h e d e s i g n a t e d u r i n a l y s i s c o o r d i n a t o r a t the time of [Magyari's] testing, and F i r e Control Technician Chief David R. C h a d w i c k , who o b s e r v e d [Magyari] f i l l h i s sample b o t t l e i n t h e men's head. One w i t n e s s was c a l l e d f r o m t h e N a v y D r u g Screening L a b o r a t o r y i n San D i e g o , Mr. R o b e r t J . C z a r n y , a civilian quality assurance officer. Mr. Czarny t e s t i f i e d a b o u t how u r i n e s a m p l e s a r e h a n d l e d a n d how r e s u l t s a r e g e n e r a t e d a t t h e L a b o r a t o r y . Mr. Czarny s i g n e d o f f on [ M a g y a r i ' s ] r e p o r t upon i t s r e l e a s e , b u t h e was n o t p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e handling or testing of [Magyari's] sample. The Government d i d n o t c a l l any o f t h e l a b t e c h n i c i a n s a t t h e N a v y D r u g S c r e e n i n g L a b o r a t o r y w h o s e names a p p e a r e d on t h e l a b r e p o r t a n d c h a i n o f c u s t o d y d o c u m e n t s , a n d who r e v i e w e d [ M a g y a r i ' s ] p a p e r w o r k , t e s t e d h i s u r i n e sample, or prepared t h e l a b r e p o r t . 9 " [ M a g y a r i ' s ] d e f e n s e c o u n s e l c r o s s - e x a m i n e d Mr. Czarny, but d i d not c a l l any o f t h e o t h e r l a b p e r s o n n e l who h a n d l e d o r t e s t e d [ M a g y a r i ' s ] urine sample. [Magyari] now argues that his constitutional right to confront the witnesses a g a i n s t h i m was v i o l a t e d a n d t h a t a n y statements contained i n the lab report that indicated h i s urine t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r t h e presence o f methamphetamine were i n a d m i s s i b l e t e s t i m o n i a l h e a r s a y and c o u l d n o t be u s e d a g a i n s t h i m a t t r i a l . "DISCUSSION "Commander, Submarine M a g y a r i , 63 U.S. a t 1 2 4 . 9 Force, 37 U.S. Pacific Fleet." CR-08-1177 "The C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e o f t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t states that 'In a l l c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s , the a c c u s e d s h a l l e n j o y t h e r i g h t ... t o b e c o n f r o n t e d with the witnesses against him ' U.S. Const. amend. V I . I n C r a w f o r d v. W a s h i n g t o n , t h e Supreme Court held that i n order f o r the prosecution to introduce ' t e s t i m o n i a l ' out-of-court statements into evidence against an accused, the Confrontation Clause requires that the witness who made t h e s t a t e m e n t be u n a v a i l a b l e , and t h a t t h e a c c u s e d have had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. 5 4 1 U.S. 3 6 , 5 3 - 5 4 , 124 S . C t . 1 3 5 4 , 158 L . E d . 2 d 177 (2004). "Prior to Crawford, the admissibility of o u t - o f - c o u r t s t a t e m e n t s was c o n t r o l l e d b y O h i o v . R o b e r t s [ , 448 U.S. 56 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ] . U n d e r R o b e r t s , t h e statements o f an o u t - o f - c o u r t witness could be admitted against an accused i f the statements c a r r i e d adequate i n d i c i a of r e l i a b i l i t y . Roberts, 448 U.S. a t 6 6 , 100 S . C t . 2 5 3 1 . "The C r a w f o r d C o u r t d e p a r t e d from the Roberts framework for admitting out-of-court hearsay statements, and transformed t h e i n q u i r y t o one h i n g i n g o n w h e t h e r t h e o u t - o f - c o u r t s t a t e m e n t comes w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e S i x t h Amendment b e c a u s e i t ' b e a r s t e s t i m o n y ' a g a i n s t an a c c u s e d . C r a w f o r d , 541 U.S. a t 5 1 , 124 S . C t . 1 3 5 4 . '"The l y n c h p i n o f t h e C r a w f o r d d e c i s i o n ... i s i t s d i s t i n c t i o n between t e s t i m o n i a l and n o n t e s t i m o n i a l h e a r s a y . U n i t e d States v. Scheurer, 62 M.J. 100, 104-05 (C.A.A.F.2005) ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. H e n d r i c k s , 395 F.3d 173, 179 (3rd C i r . 2005)). Where nontestimonial statements are at issue, the s t a t e m e n t s do n o t f a l l w i t h i n C r a w f o r d ' s s c o p e a n d may b e e x e m p t e d f r o m C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e s c r u t i n y altogether. C r a w f o r d , 5 4 1 U.S. a t 6 8 , 124 S . C t . 1354. 38 CR-08-1177 "However, t h e C r a w f o r d C o u r t d i d n o t ' s p e l l o u t a comprehensive definition of "testimonial,"' leaving t o lower courts the responsibility to d e t e r m i n e which s t a t e m e n t s q u a l i f y as ' t e s t i m o n i a l ' and f a l l w i t h i n i t s scope. I d . Nevertheless, the C o u r t i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e forms o f ' c o r e ' t e s t i m o n i a l evidence. They i n c l u d e : (1) e x p a r t e in-court testimony; (2) extrajudicial statements i n f o r m a l i z e d t r i a l m a t e r i a l s ; a n d (3) s t a t e m e n t s made under c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t would cause a r e a s o n a b l e w i t n e s s t o b e l i e v e t h e y c o u l d be used a t t r i a l . I d . at 51-52, 124 S . C t . 1 3 5 4 . Further, the Court identified examples of testimonial hearsay, including 'prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, b e f o r e a g r a n d j u r y , o r a t a f o r m e r t r i a l ; a n d ... police interrogations.' I d . a t 6 8 , 124 S . C t . 1 3 5 4 . "In addition, the Crawford Court l i n k e d i t s analysis to the legal policies underpinning the right to confrontation. I t noted that the focus o f the C o n f r o n t a t i o n Clause i s t o p r o t e c t criminal defendants from prosecutorial abuse and t h e '[i]nvolvement o f government officials i n the p r o d u c t i o n o f t e s t i m o n y w i t h an eye towards trial.' I d . a t 5 6 , 124 S . C t . 1 3 5 4 . T h u s , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f Crawford not only depends on t h e meaning of ' t e s t i m o n i a l , ' b u t on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d c o n t e x t in which o u t - o f - c o u r t statements a r e generated, and w h e t h e r t h e o u t - o f - c o u r t s t a t e m e n t s w e r e made u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t w o u l d l e a d an o b j e c t i v e w i t n e s s r e a s o n a b l y t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e statement would be available f o r use a t a later trial by t h e g o v e r n m e n t . I d . a t 5 2 , 124 S . C t . 1 3 5 4 . "The q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s w h e t h e r t h e data e n t r i e s i n [Magyari's] u r i n a l y s i s l a b report made by t h e Navy Drug Screening Laboratory technicians c o n s t i t u t e d t e s t i m o n i a l statements "[Magyari] contends t h a t t h e data recorded i n the lab reports are statements by the lab t e c h n i c i a n s and t h a t these statements f a l l under t h e 39 CR-08-1177 third category of core testimonial evidence i d e n t i f i e d i n Crawford because the l a b t e c h n i c i a n s w o u l d h a v e a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e l a b r e p o r t w o u l d be u s e d a g a i n s t him a t t r i a l . The G o v e r n m e n t a r g u e s that the lab reports are business records and t h e r e f o r e a r e by d e f i n i t i o n n o n t e s t i m o n i a l i n n a t u r e and f a l l o u t s i d e C r a w f o r d ' s s c o p e . "On the one hand, technicians working in government l a b o r a t o r i e s s c r e e n i n g and t e s t i n g u r i n e samples are s u r e l y aware t h a t a sample t e s t i n g p o s i t i v e f o r a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e may b e u s e d t o prosecute the p r o v i d e r of the sample. On t h e o t h e r hand, n o t a l l u r i n e s a m p l e s t e s t p o s i t i v e , and not a l l p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s end i n p r o s e c u t i o n . The record i n t h i s case r e f l e c t s t h a t the l a b t e c h n i c i a n s work w i t h batches of u r i n e samples c o n t a i n i n g about 200 samples each. The t e c h n i c i a n s do not equate a p a r t i c u l a r sample w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r person; i n s t e a d , t h e y a s s i g n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers t o e v e r y sample. The v a s t m a j o r i t y o f s a m p l e s a n a l y z e d do n o t t e s t positive for illegal substances. The lab technicians handling samples work in a nonadversarial environment, where they conduct routine series of tests requiring virtually no discretionary judgments. The lab technicians h a n d l i n g [ M a g y a r i ' s ] p a r t i c u l a r s a m p l e h a d no r e a s o n to suspect him o f w r o n g d o i n g , and no reason to anticipate t h a t h i s sample, out of a l l the 200 s a m p l e s i n t h e b a t c h , w o u l d t e s t p o s i t i v e and be used at a t r i a l . "In t h i s context, the b e t t e r view i s that these lab technicians were not engaged in a law enforcement function, a search for evidence in a n t i c i p a t i o n of p r o s e c u t i o n or t r i a l . Rather, t h e i r data e n t r i e s were 'simply a routine, objective cataloging of an unambiguous factual matter.' United S t a t e s v . B a h e n a - C a r d e n a s , 411 F.3d 1067, 1075 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . See a l s o S t a t e v. Dedman, 2 0 0 4 - N M S C - 3 7 , 5 3 0 , 136 N.M. 5 6 1 , 5 6 9 , 102 P . 3 d 628, 636 (finding that a blood alcohol report was 40 CR-08-1177 prepared i n a nonadversarial setting). Because the lab t e c h n i c i a n s were m e r e l y c a t a l o g i n g the r e s u l t s of routine tests, the technicians could not reasonably expect t h e i r data e n t r i e s would 'bear testimony' a g a i n s t [Magyari] at h i s c o u r t - m a r t i a l . See C o m m o n w e a l t h v . V e r d e , 444 M a s s . 2 7 9 , 827 N . E . 2 d 7 0 1 , 704 (2005) ( d r u g t e s t s a r e n o n t e s t i m o n i a l i f t h e y a r e ' m e r e [ ] r e c o r d s o f p r i m a r y f a c t , w i t h no judgment or discretion on the part of the analysts'). This c o n c l u s i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the Crawford Court's p o l i c y concerns t h a t might a r i s e where government officers are i n v o l v e d ' i n the p r o d u c t i o n o f t e s t i m o n y w i t h an eye t o w a r d trial' and where there is 'unique potential for p r o s e c u t o r i a l abuse' and o v e r r e a c h i n g . Crawford, 541 U.S. a t 5 6 , 124 S . C t . 1354. "Approximately twenty d i f f e r e n t people conducted t e s t s , made c l e r i c a l d a t a n o t a t i o n s i n [ M a g y a r i ' s ] r e c o r d s , o r a t one time had p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of [ M a g y a r i ' s ] u r i n e s a m p l e w h i l e i t was a t t h e N a v y Drug S c r e e n i n g L a b o r a t o r y . T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t any o f t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s had r e a s o n , o r were under p r e s s u r e , to reach a p a r t i c u l a r c o n c l u s i o n about [Magyari's] s a m p l e , number S9802132117, or t h a t t h e y had r e a s o n t o d i s t i n g u i s h s a m p l e number S9802132117 from the other thousands of samples routinely screened and t e s t e d by batch at the laboratory. "To b e c l e a r , we r e a c h t h i s c o n c l u s i o n b a s e d on the f a c t s of t h i s case. The G o v e r n m e n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n that l a b r e p o r t s are i n h e r e n t l y not testimonial b e c a u s e t h e y a r e b u s i n e s s and p u b l i c r e c o r d s goes too f a r . For sure, [Magyari's] lab report i s a b u s i n e s s r e c o r d . M i l i t a r y R u l e o f E v i d e n c e (M.R.E.) 803(6) i m p l i e s t h a t l a b r e p o r t s are i n c l u d e d i n the definition of business records because forensic l a b o r a t o r i e s a r e i m p a r t i a l e x a m i n i n g c e n t e r s and a laboratory report is a record of 'regularly conducted' activity. At trial, the Government e l i c i t e d ample t e s t i m o n y v e r i f y i n g t h a t [Magyari's] 41 CR-08-1177 r e p o r t was completed i n the normal course of the Navy Drug S c r e e n i n g L a b o r a t o r y ' s b u s i n e s s . Further, l a b r e s u l t s , DNA a n a l y s e s , a n d h o s p i t a l r e c o r d s , a r e oftentimes prepared in the course of routine, ' r e g u l a r l y conducted' business. " N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e same t y p e s o f r e c o r d s may a l s o be p r e p a r e d at the behest o f law enforcement i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f a p r o s e c u t i o n , w h i c h may make t h e reports testimonial. See S t a t e v. Norman, 203 O r . A p p . 1, 125 P . 3 d 1 5 , 19 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the Sixth Amendment was not implicated where t e c h n i c i a n s d i d n o t f u n c t i o n 'as t h e p r o x y o f t h e police investigation concerning [the] defendant'). Thus, l a b r e s u l t s or o t h e r types of r o u t i n e r e c o r d s may b e c o m e t e s t i m o n i a l w h e r e a d e f e n d a n t i s a l r e a d y under investigation, and where the testing is initiated by the prosecution to discover incriminating evidence. For example, cross-examination may be appropriate where a p a r t i c u l a r defendant i s accused of rape and law e n f o r c e m e n t c o n d u c t s and s e e k s t o a d m i t t h e r e s u l t s f r o m a b l o o d o r DNA t e s t . See P e o p l e v. R o g e r s , 8 A.D.3d 888, 780 N.Y.S.2d 393, 397 (N.Y.App.Div.2004). Cross-examination may a l s o be necessary where a suspect i s believed to have operated a v e h i c l e under the i n f l u e n c e of drugs or a l c o h o l and a r e c o r d or a f f i d a v i t i s p r e p a r e d by hospital personnel f o r the p r o s e c u t i o n ' s use at trial. See L a s V e g a s v . W a l s h , 120 N e v . 392, 91 P.3d 591, 595 (2004), m o d i f i e d by 100 P.3d 658 (Nev.2004). But these f a c t o r s are not a t p l a y i n t h e c a s e a d d r e s s e d t o d a y a n d we n e e d n o t a n d do n o t determine i n what o t h e r contexts Crawford might apply." Magyari, 63 M.J. added). Based at on the 125-128 above 42 (footnote analysis, omitted; the emphasis Magyari court CR-08-1177 determined that testimonial ... was solely data entries under Crawford." "[T]he designed "the evil address reflected and as i s government the discussion 62 U. M i a m i L. R e v . 541 U.S. a t 70. not be concerned Moreover, with a that i s u n a v a i l a b l e to only that crime Confrontation Clause 'identification' Graham, regards, 62 U. the Not was analysis a l l the 128. Crawford eliciting 1 0 Clause and or was Davis receiving from t h i r d p a r t i e s . be 811, A l l of i s i n accord." 829 "[t]he Michael (2008), c i t i n g the H. cross-examined at trial committed, i . e . , corpus should concerned be L. Rev. in DNA Crawford, Confrontation Clause declarant's out-of-court of the accused Miami at not " T e s t i m o n i a l " I n t e r p r e t e d , Removing the Clutter, a 63 M . J . i n both of Crawford Graham, C r a w f o r d / D a v i s lab report are Confrontation officials 'accusatory statements' historical case. Magyari, principal to i n the Magyari profiles 829 is solely (2008). appropriate recorded statement asserting delicti. as h a v i n g c o m m i t t e d 811, should by with a In in the The the crime." these Ware's Orchid T h e M a g y a r i c o u r t w e n t on t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e l a b r e p o r t s w e r e p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d as e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l . However, Ware c a l l e d upon t h i s C o u r t t o r e v i e w o n l y w h e t h e r h i s l a c k o f an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e t h e l a b o r a t o r y a n a l y s t who actually performed the tests in question violated the Confrontation Clause. 1 0 43 CR-08-1177 laboratory technicians The technicians every day. called perform Under to from rape k i t s r e s u l t i n a this testify, a great circumstance, an Orchid their beyond his initials or following t e s t i n g p r o t o c o l was associate donor the was was followed certain extract to Thus, Also, the tests conducting were The any recorded the data extracted alert identity the technicians the laboratory technicians against Ware u n t i l h i s i d e n t i t y was the d o n o r was not from their and could not known. established until 44 their identity Orchid DNA did not The DNA not be DNA donor protocol Orchid s u s p e c t Ware o f unknown, to and the was laboratory d i s c r e t i o n a r y judgments. d i d not was the of that could above, routine them. make his technicians stated offer presence reflected atmosphere not technicians the p a r t i c u l a r person. the as no could Orchid The any that i f have would t e s t and tests that, tests did laboratory because assertions Ware b e c a u s e , in technicians not to unknown. merely DNA identical i t i s apparent specific followed. unknown. adversarial her of technician i n d e p e n d e n t r e c o l l e c t i o n o f any nothing number prosecution. They testing. any The wrongdoing DNA of profile did the donor. The procure evidence Ware's i d e n t i t y DellaManna matched as the CR-08-1177 Orchid profile Orchid l a b o r a t o r y t e c h n i c i a n s p e r f o r m e d t e s t s on t h e The Orchid with technicians profile before conspire with match the W a r e ' s CODIS p r o f i l e . testing one Ware's. Orchid w o u l d have had and another like laboratory regarding enforcement function to the they DNA would were had not rape k i t . Ware's DNA had to profile in to Magyari, no accusatory engaged a multiple have a DNA technicians a n t i c i p a t i o n of t h e y were n e v e r aware of the have had create technicians Ware, in to they i n order Therefore, information then Moreover, a law- prosecution, and donor's i d e n t i t y . in Rather, to reiterate, "their data entries were 'simply a routine, objective cataloging of an unambiguous factual m a t t e r . ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B a h e n a - C a r d e n a s , 411 F-3d 1067 , 1075 (9th C i r . 2005)--. Because the lab t e c h n i c i a n s were m e r e l y c a t a l o g i n g the r e s u l t s of r o u t i n e t e s t s , the t e c h n i c i a n s c o u l d not r e a s o n a b l y expect t h e i r data e n t r i e s would 'bear testimony' against [Ware] ... . This conclusion i s consistent w i t h the Crawford C o u r t ' s p o l i c y concerns t h a t might a r i s e where government o f f i c e r s are i n v o l v e d ' i n the production o f t e s t i m o n y w i t h an e y e t o w a r d trial' and where there is 'unique potential for p r o s e c u t o r i a l a b u s e ' and overreaching. Crawford, 541 U.S. a t 56, 124 S . C t . 1354." Magyari, 63 M.J. Regarding Magyari, we can at the see 126-27. Orchid no laboratory technicians, potential for prosecutorial 45 as abuse in by CR-08-1177 their absence from t r i a l . no p o t e n t i a l these bears there f o r p r o s e c u t o r i a l i n f l u e n c e o r abuse. reasons, laboratory Under these c i r c u m s t a n c e s the test technicians witness and data entries cannot Ware. against be Their of considered work was For a l lof the Orchid evidence product that i s thus Ware's o b j e c t i o n made nontestimonial. The on trial court properly confrontation-clause profile court report properly overruled grounds and p r o p e r l y during Kokoszka's allowed testimony, DellaManna admitted t h e DNA and t h e t o use the p r o f i l e trial while testifying. II. Ware c o n t e n d s , a s h e d i d a t t r i a l , p r o c e s s when O r c h i d material be trial retested. Ware a p p e a r s swab c o n t a i n e d fundamentally unfair. 46 due l e a v i n g no to actually t h a t h i s i n a b i l i t y t o h a v e h i s own e x p e r t DNA f r o m a v a g i n a l his c o n s u m e d t h e " r a w DNA," t h e r e b y f o r him t o have claiming t h a t he was d e n i e d extract i n L.M.'s r a p e k i t r e n d e r e d CR-08-1177 In taken this from chemical to L.M. process remove from case, DNA t h e swabs t h e rape at 1 2 the hospital was u s e d from these i s called DNA e x t r a c t i s a l s o c a l l e d is k i t contained after by O r c h i d swabs t h e "DNA to a l l the DellaManna testified alternative testing. Ware swabs raped. i s separated (R. 594.) The (R. 5 9 6 . ) The " r a w " DNA However, i n t h i s L.M.'s A a profile, rape i n some c a s e s , k i t . such case, i n O r c h i d had (R. 457.) as Ware's, t h e t o u s i n g a l l t h e s w a b s w o u l d b e t o h a v e no DNA f o r (R. 6 1 4 . ) f o r independent available that that extract." " r a w DNA." in swabs laboratory technicians t o e x t r a c t e n o u g h DNA t o g e n e r a t e use vaginal 1 1 s h e was -- t h e DNA t e s t e d t o p r o d u c e a DNA p r o f i l e . order two a n d was Thus, t h e r e testing. were no s w a b s However, i n the possession Moreover, DellaManna t e s t i f i e d t h a t : available t h e DNA o f t h e DFS. to e x t r a c t was (R. 4 4 7 . ) " I t ' s common p r a c t i c e t o T y p i c a l l y , t h e r e a r e f o u r swabs i n a r a p e k i t . I n some c a s e s t h e h o s p i t a l u s e s o n l y two swabs. I n o t h e r c a s e s , DNA w i l l n o t be p r e s e n t on a l l t h e swabs t h a t were u s e d . 1 1 " A n d t o r e c o v e r t h e DNA f r o m t h e s w a b , y o u i m m e r s e i t i n a c o l l e c t i o n o f c h e m i c a l s , commonly c a l l e d s t a i n e x t r a c t i o n buffer a n d p r o t e i n a s e come i n a v a r i e t y o f c h e m i c a l s t o e l u t e t h e DNA o f f o f t h e s w a b i n t o a t u b e w h e r e y o u h a v e liquid extract. T h a t ' s w h a t we c a l l t h e e x t r a c t . That i s remaining. The a c t u a l swab i s c o n s u m e d i n t h a t p r o c e s s . " (R. 594.) 1 2 47 CR-08-1177 start with the extract --- to generate the profile." (R. 596.) According on DNA to Ware, b e c a u s e evidence, inability to was prejudicial to tested not error. (Ware 54-55.) He expert.) "there (R. was no "opportunity brief, at DNA to p. testing Ware was was p. left the i n one that the Here, his defense $5,000 asserts and that, was was hire to forensic an because analysis." Ware serving as jail dispute that Ware was at time of the the "[e]vidence that DNA place he concerning sample he because DNA contended that the the retest," existed and i n another" at the 42.) to solely have granted specifically rested denied the (Ware's 42.) possibility of was d i s c r e d i t the Ware a r g u e s strong conviction his independently harmless his was is there 48 the that Mr. (Ware's b r i e f , at his i n the was on alibi defense. He Autauga County jail raped. There incarcerated However, placed in raped. s u p p o s e d t o be constraints error indicated a he when L.M. rape. an that indicated that was incarcerated L.M.'s was showed records r e f e r r i n g to cook trial evidence physical t i m e L.M. at there was Ware i n h i s was i n the a no jail dispute capacity as CR-08-1177 the jail cook. that suggesting often The Ware granted allegedly blocks to spent f r o m w h e r e L.M. the Here, which was not as t a k e n f r o m P.D. vaginal The (Ala. relies 1992), a location was at "[h]aving had on not the t h e DNA as with the a parte to support h i s was where Ware four a sample available rape kits profile with Gingo, at We note the o r a l swab swab profile was as did the "inconsistent." testing. So. 2d 1237, claim. "The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t , i n Ex p a r t e G i n g o , 605 So. 2 d 1237 ( A l a . 1 992), adopted the U n i t e d States Supreme Court's position in Arizona v. Y o u n g b l o o d , 488 U.S. 5 1 , 109 S. C t . 3 3 3 , 102 L. E d . 2 d 281 (1988), r e g a r d i n g the a l l e g a t i o n s that the 49 p. That the o r a l the 605 the i n P.D.'s c a s e , i n L.M.'s c a s e . CODIS due in (Ware's b r i e f , testing n o t h i n g t o do Ex who address an two charged." a match mean State i m p o r t a n t i n the case at hand in testing "match" the trusty s w a b s t a k e n i n L.M.'s c a s e a n d does conclusions Ware jail One leave argues, Ware was strong a were c o m p l e t e l y u n r e l a t e d . produce swab, as from raped. Ware i s r e f e r r i n g the v a g i n a l not was especially f o r w h i c h Mr. 41.) did Ware inconsistencies crimes evidence treated unsupervised r e t e s t i n g was that was heard unsupervised leave. Additionally, for jury 1240 CR-08-1177 state f a i l e d to preserve evidence p o t e n t i a l l y useful to the defense: "'"[U]nless a c r i m i n a l defendant can show b a d f a i t h on t h e p a r t o f t h e p o l i c e , failure to preserve potentially useful e v i d e n c e does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l of due p r o c e s s o f l a w . " Y o u n g b l o o d , 488 U. S. a t 5 8 , 109 S. C t . a t 3 3 7 . "The p r e s e n c e o r absence o f bad f a i t h by t h e p o l i c e f o r purposes o f t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e m u s t n e c e s s a r i l y t u r n on t h e p o l i c e ' s k n o w l e d g e of t h e e x c u l p a t o r y v a l u e of t h e e v i d e n c e a t the time i t was lost or destroyed." Y o u n g b l o o d , 488 U.S. a t 57 ( f o o t n o t e ) , 109 S. C t . a t 337 ( f o o t n o t e ) , c i t i n g N a p u e v . Illinois, 360 U.S. 2 6 4 , 2 69, 79 S. C t . 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 7 , 3 L. E d . 2 d 1217 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . ' "605 So. 2d at 1240-41. Gingo additionally r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o due p r o c e s s c a n be v i o l a t e d when t h e l o s s o r d e s t r u c t i o n i s o f e v i d e n c e so c r i t i c a l t o t h e d e f e n s e t h a t i t s l o s s o r d e s t r u c t i o n makes t h e t r i a l f u n d a m e n t a l l y u n f a i r . Id. ( c i t i n g Youngblood, 488 U.S. a t 6 7 , 109 S. C t . at 342)." See Ex parte Gingo, 605 So. 2d 1237, Although the l e g a l p r i n c i p a l i n Gingo we the facts note here. Concisely, conducted was it was i n Gingo away because evidence i n Ware's t h e EPA those remaining following tests Agency d i d n o t know i n a criminal t o use a l l the v a g i n a l 50 case, from Protection f o r use by t h e d e f e n d a n t necessary applies ( A l a . 1 992). are distinguishable by t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l thrown retained i n Gingo 1240 ("the EPA") i t should case. s w a b s i n L.M.'s be Here, rape CR-08-1177 kit t o o b t a i n e n o u g h DNA f o r t e s t i n g . been used, for there would n o t h a v e b e e n a n y DNA e x t r a c t available testing. Ware h a s n o t s h o w n b a d f a i t h kit was s e n t "cold-case" was by t h e p o l i c e . to Orchid f o rtesting, rape kits. DNA w o u l d police h a d no value of the Therefore, bad faith be r e c o v e r e d f r o m regarding evidence the destruction at other Ware or destruction A r i z o n a v. Youngblood, evidence i n this instruments part used o f a rape custody k i t . Thus, t h e any p o s s i b l e exculpatory i t was destroyed. and t h e consumption a denial o f due p r o c e s s the destruction so c r i t i c a l made any o f t h e o f t h e s w a b s was n o t t h e r e s u l t o f Ware h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t of evidence that t h e rape time on t h e p a r t o f t h e p o l i c e swabs does n o t c o n s t i t u t e the l o s s the rape t h e k i t was t e s t e d , At the time knowledge L.M.'s along with several n o t a s u s p e c t , a n d t h e r e was no a s s u r a n c e rapist's of Had a l l t h e swabs n o t his trial fundamentally 488 U.S. 5 1 , 67 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . at the hospital k i t . The r a p e hopefully that 51 i t s loss unfair. See The i m p o r t a n t The s w a b s w e r e t h e to collect k i t was k e p t p u r s u a n t t h a t was n o t c h a l l e n g e d . of law. o f t h e s w a b s was to the defense c a s e was t h e DNA e x t r a c t . of the DNA a s to a chain When O r c h i d r e c e i v e d t h e CR-08-1177 rape k i t , a chemical was used to elute DNA from the cotton swab. As stated i n Part this case f o l l o w e d the laboratory unavoidable 60 Orchid's extract DNA 1994), reviewed from cert. victim f o r subsequent no guarantee testing, than that that to collect testing went i t would have Ware remaining could DNA have extract tested to the 16 F . 3 d 5 7 , (1994) (any from rape weight Moreover, a of the there i s DNA. Additionally, t e s t e d t h e DNA e x t r a c t , retained t h e DNA the goes a swab f o r i n d e p e n d e n t contained was 831 samples to its admissibility). h a d Ware b e e n g i v e n The l e a v i n g Ware u n a b l e t o 513 U.S. DellaManna t e s t i f i e d that a f t e r Orchid the procedures. one o f t h e s w a b s , denied, by t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n rather the testing in p r o c e d u r e s and S e e H o l d r e n V. L e g u r s k y , failure evidence t h e DNA operating o f t h e swabs, of the evidence. (4th C i r . standard supervisor consumption independently weight I of the opinion, and kept extract using a t t h e DFS. h i s own expert. III. Ware motions contends to dismiss that the t r i a l based court on t h e d e n i a l 52 erred i n denying h i s of h i s request to a CR-08-1177 speedy t r i a l . 1 Ware c l a i m s 3 t h e S t a t e c a u s e d d e l a y s , and due to circumstances In determining established by the Wingo, 407 U.S. factors are considered: to 514 a a a United speedy (1) were lost denied his the test apply Court which length been we Supreme in the has trial, States that control. defendant (1972 ) , reasons f o r the d e l a y ; to that material witnesses whether right right asserted his right, beyond Ware's constitutional her t h a t he the of i n Barker following the delay; v. four (2) the (3) t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n o f h i s speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice or to the (Ala. 2005), the defendant. In Ex Alabama parte Supreme necessarily in which are each the Court 928 conduct Ex 2d 259, "'A the Clopton, Barker, 407 263 single because t h i s of both parte 1985)](quoting So. stated: determinative, weighed."' [(Ala. Walker, factor i s a "balancing prosecution 656 U.S. is So. at and 2d the [1243] 530). We from 13 of at "In A l a b a m a , ' [ t ] h e l e n g t h of d e l a y i s m e a s u r e d the date of the i n d i c t m e n t or the date of the argue p r e i n d i c t m e n t 53 delay. 1245 examine delay. Ware d i d not test, defense factor in turn." Length not CR-08-1177 issuance of an arrest warrant -whichever is e a r l i e r -- t o t h e d a t e o f t h e t r i a l . ' R o b e r s o n [ v . S t a t e ] , 864 So. 2d [ 3 7 9 ] a t 394. Cf. § 15-3-7, Ala. C o d e 1975 ('A p r o s e c u t i o n may be commenced w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h i s c h a p t e r by f i n d i n g an i n d i c t m e n t , t h e i s s u i n g o f a w a r r a n t or by b i n d i n g o v e r t h e o f f e n d e r . ' ) ; R u l e 2.1, A l a . R. C r i m . P. ( ' A l l c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l be c o m m e n c e d e i t h e r by i n d i c t m e n t o r by c o m p l a i n t . ' ) . " Ex p a r t e W a l k e r , 928 on 2005, December 16, December 21, 2005. 30 months. A See State So. v. State, delay 900 was So. 30-month Van 607 2d So. 482 Crim. the of arrest June 9, So. 2d (Ala. App. prejudicial); issued on 2 0 0 8 -- a delay of prejudicial. (Ala. Crim. prejudicial); Crim. prejudicial). indicted was 1176 presumptively 1290 Ware was i s presumptively 952 (Ala. Crim. App. writ delay was 2d Here, b e g a n on Wooten, presumptively presumptively (Ala. and Trial 2 0 0 6 ) ( 2 9-month d e l a y v. 2d a t 264. App. Cf. Vincent 19 9 2 ) ( 3 1 - m o n t h S t a t e v. Johnson, 2004)(28-month delay Payne 1995)(25-month v. delay State, was App. 683 not So. was not 2d 440 presumptively prejudicial). Reason for delay. the timeline presented 45. With bracketed the (this The by exception does not following the of State dates, in i t s brief corrections, include 54 are the taken at pages which brackets from have placed 42¬ been around CR-08-1177 "Public Defender"), chronology following of this relevant timeline events represents i n this case. a correct We adopt f o r speedy trial in i t s entirety. "5/22/06 filed. - [Ware's] p r o se m o t i o n "9/8/06 - A t a r r a i g n m e n t S t a t e i s o r d e r e d t o p r o d u c e d i s c o v e r y w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s . (CR. 2 9 ; R. 11.) " 9 / 1 8 / 0 6 - [Ware] f i l e s (CR. 26.) p r o se m o t i o n "9/20/06 - P u b l i c Defender d i s c o v e r y . (CR. 3 6 - 3 7 . ) ... for discovery. files motion for "9/22/06 - [ P u b l i c d e f e n d e r ] f i l e s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s w i t h p r e j u d i c e f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h o r d e r of 9 / 8 / 0 6 . (CR. 41.) "10/5/06 - D i s c o v e r y p r o v i d e d t o (CR. 4 5 ; R. 40.) [public defender]. " 1 0 / 1 8 / 0 6 - H e a r i n g on m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s ; [public d e f e n d e r ] a l s o renews speedy trial motion; trial court denies both, finding no p r e j u d i c e ; State requests continuance f o r additional DNA testing; t r i a l c o u r t orders t e s t i n g , o f f e r s to continue case f r o m N o v e m b e r t r i a l d a t e t o a l l o w f o r t e s t i n g . (R. 9-29.) "11/6/06 - At h e a r i n g [public defender] renews m o t i o n f o r s p e e d y t r i a l , a s k s t h a t t r i a l be s e t n e x t week, o r i g i n a l t r i a l d a t e ; t r i a l c o u r t , n o t i n g t h a t r e s u l t s o f DNA t e s t i n g n o t y e t a v a i l a b l e , states that case w i l l n o t be t r i e d i n November unless r e s u l t s a r e r e c e i v e d . (R. 3 0 - 3 3 . ) "11/9/06 counsel. [Ware] f i l e s (CR. 4 8 - 5 0 . ) pro 55 se motion for new the CR-08-1177 " 1 1 / 1 3 / 0 6 - DNA t e s t r e s u l t s h a v i n g b e e n r e c e i v e d , trial has b e e n s e t f o r f o l l o w i n g week; D e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f , s t i l l i n s i s t i n g on new c o u n s e l , a g r e e s t o let [public defender] r e p r e s e n t h i m u n t i l he can h i r e c o u n s e l ; [ p u b l i c d e f e n d e r ] s t a t e s t h a t he h a s n o t had s u f f i c i e n t t i m e t o p r e p a r e , and i n l i g h t o f this Defendant h i m s e l f withdraws h i s motion for s p e e d y t r i a l ; [ p u b l i c d e f e n d e r ] s t a t e s t h a t he w i l l f i l e m o t i o n f o r e x p e n s e s f o r DNA e x p e r t . (R. 3 4 - 5 1 . ) "4/24/07 - Case i s p r e s e n t l y s e t f o r t r i a l i n A p r i l o r May; [ p u b l i c d e f e n d e r ] has a s k e d f o r a d d i t i o n a l DNA d i s c o v e r y f r o m S t a t e a n d r e q u e s t s c o n t i n u a n c e , which is granted; State has no objection to d i s c o v e r y b u t a s k s t h a t t h e v o l u m i n o u s d o c u m e n t s be viewed at F o r e n s i c Sciences o f f i c e . (R. 5 3 - 1 0 4 . ) "7/[13]/07 - Hearing to consider motion for new c o u n s e l and s p e e d y t r i a l f i l e d by [ p u b l i c d e f e n d e r ] at [Ware's] r e q u e s t (CR. 69); [public defender] claims that discovery requested in April was r e c e i v e d on J u l y 1 2 t h , s t a t e s t h a t t h e y h a v e n o t h a d t i m e t o r e v i e w m a t e r i a l r e c e i v e d ; [Ware] h i m s e l f wants another lawyer, wants c o n t i n u a n c e f o r t r i a l , now s e t f o r 8 / 6 / 0 7 , i n o r d e r t o g e t a n o t h e r l a w y e r , and w i t h d r a w s m o t i o n f o r s p e e d y t r i a l ; [Ware] t o l d t h a t c a s e w i l l be t r i e d f o r s u r e on n e x t t r i a l d a t e , whether [Ware] h a s another lawyer or represents h i m s e l f ; [ p u b l i c d e f e n d e r ] e x p r e s s e s c o n f u s i o n as t o w h e t h e r t h e y a r e a u t h o r i z e d t o w o r k on c a s e w h i l e [ W a r e ] s e e k s new l a w y e r . (R. 1 0 5 - 1 1 6 . ) " 9 / 4 / 0 7 - P r e t r i a l h e a r i n g on c a s e t h a t h a s b e e n s e t f o r n e x t week; [Ware] h i m s e l f a s k s f o r c o n t i n u a n c e to seek l a w y e r ; S t a t e has a l s o a s k e d f o r c o n t i n u a n c e (reasons not s t a t e d ) ; c o n t i n u a n c e g r a n t e d ; t r i a l set f o r 11/13/07; [ p u b l i c d e f e n d e r ] e x p r e s s e s c o n f u s i o n as t o p r e s e n t r o l e i n c a s e ; [Ware] i n f o r m e d t h a t c a s e w i l l be t r i e d on 1 1 / 1 3 / 0 7 , a n d t h a t i f he d o e s n o t h a v e h i s own l a w y e r b y t h e n he w i l l r e p r e s e n t h i m s e l f w i t h [ p u b l i c d e f e n d e r ] as a d v i s o r y c o u n s e l . (R. 1 1 9 - 1 2 5 . ) 56 CR-08-1177 "12/5/07 - S t a t e f i l e s m o t i o n t o c o n s o l i d a t e case with another s i m i l a r charge, f i l e d r e c e n t l y , that w i l l i n v o l v e same DNA e v i d e n c e ; [ p u b l i c defender] agrees to c o n s o l i d a t i o n ; case i s p r e s e n t l y s e t f o r t r i a l n e x t week; [ p u b l i c d e f e n d e r ] a s k s f o r t i m e t o l o c a t e w i t n e s s e s on s e c o n d c a s e ; S t a t e s a y s i t i s ready t o p r o c e e d but w i l l not oppose c o n t i n u a n c e ; c a s e c o n t i n u e d t o 2 / 1 1 / 0 8 . (R. 1 2 7 - 1 2 9 . ) " 2 / 1 9 / 0 8 - H e a r i n g ; m e n t i o n i s made t h a t c a s e h a s been set f o r 3/10/08; [public defender] has e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n s t h a t w o r k on DNA e v i d e n c e c a n n o t be c o m p l e t e d by t h e n ; [public defender] mentions r e q u e s t f o r r a w DNA m a t e r i a l , a n d s t a t e s t h a t i f r a w DNA i s produced c o n t i n u a n c e may be sought f o r i n d e p e n d e n t t e s t i n g ; S t a t e s a y s i t w i l l b e r e a d y on 3 / 1 0 / 0 8 . (R. 1 3 1 - 1 3 3 . ) "3/10/08 - S t a t e has j u s t received from [public defender] [Department of C o r r e c t i o n s ] documents indicating that [ W a r e ] may h a v e b e e n a c t u a l l y i n custody on date of second charge, asks for c o n t i n u a n c e f o r t i m e t o i n v e s t i g a t e ; c o n t i n u a n c e on this ground i s denied; State also asks for c o n t i n u a n c e because w i t n e s s i n second case has had stroke; State apparently withdraws motion for c o n t i n u a n c e a n d a s k s t h a t s e c o n d c a s e be s e v e r e d ; [public defender] objects to severance; [ultimately, a s b e s t we c a n d i s c e r n f r o m t h e r e c o r d , t h e d e f e n s e acquiesced to the continuance to avoid severance.] (R. 140-165.) "6/9/08 - T r i a l b e g i n s ; a t p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g S t a t e d i s m i s s e s one c o u n t o f f i r s t c a s e , d i s m i s s e s a l l charges i n second case; [ p u b l i c defender] o b j e c t s to d i s m i s s a l of second case; [ p u b l i c defender] s t a t e s that at 3/10/08 hearing i t d i d not agree to c o n t i n u a n c e b u t o n l y w i t h d r e w o b j e c t i o n , so as t o p r e s e r v e s p e e d y t r i a l i s s u e . (R. 1 6 7 - 2 2 3 . ) " (State's brief, a t pp. 41-45.) 57 CR-08-1177 I n Ex parte Walker, supra, the Alabama Supreme Court stated: "The S t a t e has t h e b u r d e n o f j u s t i f y i n g t h e d e l a y . See B a r k e r , 407 U. S. a t 5 3 1 ; S t e e l e y v. C i t y o f G a d s d e n , 533 So. 2 d 6 7 1 , 680 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1988). Barker r e c o g n i z e s t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s of reasons f o r delay: (1) d e l i b e r a t e d e l a y , (2) n e g l i g e n t d e l a y , and (3) j u s t i f i e d d e l a y . 407 U.S. at 531. Courts assign d i f f e r e n t weight to d i f f e r e n t reasons f o r delay. Deliberate delay is 'weighted heavily' a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . 407 U.S. a t 531. Deliberate d e l a y i n c l u d e s an 'attempt to d e l a y the t r i a l in order t o hamper t h e defense' or '"to gain some t a c t i c a l advantage over (defendants) or to harass them."' 407 U.S. a t 531 & n. 32 (quoting United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 325 (1971)). N e g l i g e n t d e l a y i s weighted l e s s h e a v i l y a g a i n s t the State than i s d e l i b e r a t e delay. B a r k e r , 407 U.S. at 531; Ex p a r t e C a r r e l l , 565 So. 2 d [ 1 0 4 , ] 108 [(Ala. 1990)]. Justified delay -- w h i c h i n c l u d e s such o c c u r r e n c e s as m i s s i n g w i t n e s s e s o r d e l a y f o r w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t i s p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e -- i s n o t weighted a g a i n s t the S t a t e . Barker, 407 U.S. at 5 3 1 ; Zumbado v . S t a t e , 615 So. 2 d 1 2 2 3 , 1234 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)('"Delays occasioned by the d e f e n d a n t o r on h i s b e h a l f a r e e x c l u d e d from the l e n g t h of d e l a y and a r e h e a v i l y c o u n t e d a g a i n s t t h e defendant in applying the balancing test of Barker."') ( q u o t i n g M c C a l l u m v . S t a t e , 407 So. 2d 8 6 5 , 868 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1981))." 928 So. 2d Most Ware. at of 265. the delay Approximately r e t u r n e d , Ware f i l e d motion in 11 this case months after a m o t i o n f o r new f o r a speedy t r i a l . (See 58 R. can be the counsel 45-46.) attributed indictment and to was withdrew h i s Approximately 16 CR-08-1177 months following discovery and the a indictment, Ware continuance. requested Approximately f o l l o w i n g t h e i n d i c t m e n t Ware a g a i n a s k e d hire new c o u n s e l a n d a g a i n w i t h d r e w (See R. 113.) indictment -- continuance Approximately t e n months to obtain 19 months trial months f o r a continuance to his speedy-trial 21 before new additional -- counsel. request. following Ware asked (See R. was for a consolidated with continuance to the instant find witnesses case, in a n d Ware the second T w e n t y - s e v e n m o n t h s f o l l o w i n g t h e i n d i c t m e n t -three months b e f o r e filed motion cases. trial to continue Ware d i d n o t w a n t they were date. not severed -- to sever the cases caused is Ware any d e l a y , attributable against 1 4 has n o t shown that case. a previously and and because to him, continued ultimately, 1 4 Because was asked the c o n s o l i d a t e d severed, and t r i a l rape approximately the State withdrew a n d moved for a 123-24.) A p p r o x i m a t e l y 24 m o n t h s f o l l o w i n g t h e i n d i c t m e n t a s e c o n d case the until the State some o f t h e d e l a y this Barker factors a later deliberately i n this do not case weigh the State. U l t i m a t e l y , the State dropped 59 the charges involving P.D. CR-08-1177 Assertion motion for a approximately (CR. on of right speedy five 2 6 , R. 3 0 . ) t o speedy t r i a l . trial So. motion July or acquiesced to motion before to continue acquiesced on M a r c h 105-07, 10, 2008. 111-12, speedy-trial acquiesced for a after motion date." he trial last was made o n returned Ware's 5, 2 0 0 7 , last a n d t h a t he on F e b r u a r y b e g a n on J u n e a n d he Ware's that also 19, 2008, 9, 2 0 0 8 . (R. B e c a u s e Ware m o v e d t o w i t h d r a w h i s and sought continuances, or suffered only prior to that Lewis (Ala. Crim. Thus, c o n s i d e r i n g a l l the motions App. 1984), However, I t appears The t r i a l i n the delays v . S t a t e , 568 t h e i n d i c t m e n t was continuances 123-24). trial speedy was made o n D e c e m b e r to additional -¬ f o r a speedy f o r a speedy t r i a l trial. 2006 trial several continuances. to withdraw h i s request 11 m o n t h s 22, t o a speedy Kelley A p p . 1990 ) . h i s request 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 -- 19 m o n t h s and and "Repeated requests (Ala. Crim. May a p r o se t h e i n d i c t m e n t was r e t u r n e d . Ware d i d a s s e r t h i s r i g h t to withdraw requested about i n f a v o r o f an a c c u s e d . " 2 d 4 0 5 , 410 moved or months a f t e r several occasions. weigh h e a v i l y on Ware f i l e d v. S t a t e , aff'd, 60 he minimal "either prejudice 469 So. 2d 1 2 9 1 , 1294 469 So. 2 d 1301 ( A l a . i n this case, we 1985). conclude CR-08-1177 that in Ware's r e q u e s t his f o r a speedy t r i a l does not weigh heavily favor. Prejudice to the defendant. "A f o u r t h f a c t o r i s p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . Prejudice, of c o u r s e , should be assessed in the light of the i n t e r e s t s of defendants which the speedy t r i a l r i g h t was designed to p r o t e c t . This C o u r t has i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e s u c h i n t e r e s t s : (i) to prevent oppressive p r e t r i a l i n c a r c e r a t i o n ; ( i i ) to m i n i m i z e a n x i e t y and concern of the accused; and ( i i i ) to l i m i t the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the defense w i l l be i m p a i r e d . ... Of t h e s e , t h e m o s t s e r i o u s i s t h e last, because the inability of a defendant a d e q u a t e l y to p r e p a r e h i s c a s e skews the f a i r n e s s of the e n t i r e system." Barker, 407 U.S. at 532. Ware's s p e e d y - t r i a l c l o c k s t a r t e d i n December 2005. was i n p r i s o n on trial. trial other Ware's c l a i m is not well charges f o r the that he taken suffered because f o l l o w i n g a f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n and legal by men could Events process. who Also, in this was with occurring unavailability disappearance of of Ware before a alleged anxiety was who witness 61 no he his 2005, and was before awaiting in prison with the and predicament. such of the surrounded doubt understood because witnesses, while well acquainted concerning December months already time p e r i o d , were a l s o i n p r i s o n and commiserate he e n t i r e 30 Ware as the death, the destruction of CR-08-1177 records, thus, d i d not occur w i t h i n the a l l e g e d p e r i o d of delay cannot this case denied be was blamed not right the alleged so p r e j u d i c i a l an o p p o r t u n i t y After on for a fair delay. against The Ware delay that he trial was in was trial. c o n s i d e r i n g t h e B a r k e r f a c t o r s , we h o l d t h a t t o a speedy and, Ware's not v i o l a t e d . IV. Ware motion for a robbery she contends with a "knife or other L.M.'s 15-16.) weapon f o r both sharp At as f o r a judgment prima facie case because, armed w i t h of erred -- Ware's back in or a object" of a c q u i t t a l first-degree a d e a d l y weapon thought -- that of the he a offenses. and Ware first-degree that instrument. "With respect t o the s u f f i c i e n c y - o f - t h e - e v i d e n c e claim, i t i s well settled that '"[i]n determining 62 was to e s t a b l i s h a d i d not prove or dangerous was had a l lthe evidence, robbery and instrumentality. for failure he s a i d , t h e S t a t e she pocket charged at the time of that d o u b t t h a t Ware dangerous offenses i n denying h i s to the burglary testimony the conclusion moved was acquittal sharp deadly indictments burglary court t o prove beyond a reasonable Ware's (CR. the t r i a l of because something insufficient armed judgment charge felt that Ware CR-08-1177 the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a c o n v i c t i o n , a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t m u s t a c c e p t as t r u e a l l e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d by t h e S t a t e , a c c o r d the State a l l legitimate inferences therefrom, and c o n s i d e r a l l e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the p r o s e c u t i o n . " ' B a l l e n g e r v . S t a t e , 720 So. 2 d 1 0 3 3 , 1034 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) , q u o t i n g F a i r c l o t h v . S t a t e , 471 So. 2d 485, 488 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 8 4 ) , a f f ' d , 471 So. 2 d 493 ( A l a . 1985). '"The t e s t used i n determining the s u f f i c i e n c y of evidence to s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n i s whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the p r o s e c u t i o n , a r a t i o n a l f i n d e r of f a c t c o u l d have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."' N u n n v . S t a t e , 697 So. 2 d 4 9 7 , 498 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g O ' N e a l v . S t a t e , 602 So. 2 d 4 6 2 , 464 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) . '"When t h e r e i s l e g a l e v i d e n c e f r o m w h i c h t h e j u r y c o u l d , by fair inference, find the defendant guilty, the trial c o u r t s h o u l d submit [the case] t o the j u r y , and, i n such a case, t h i s c o u r t w i l l not d i s t u r b the t r i a l court's decision."' F a r r i o r v . S t a t e , 728 So. 2d 691 , 696 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , q u o t i n g Ward v. S t a t e , 557 So. 2 d 8 4 8 , 850 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1990). 'The r o l e o f a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s i s n o t t o s a y w h a t t h e facts are. Our r o l e ... i s t o j u d g e w h e t h e r t h e evidence i s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t to allow submission o f an i s s u e f o r d e c i s i o n [ b y ] t h e j u r y . ' Bankston v . S t a t e , 358 So. 2 d 1 0 4 0 , 1042 ( A l a . 1978)." Williams v. State, 10 So. 3d 1083, 1086 (Ala. Crim. 2008). First-degree First-degree "(a) the f i r s t he: robbery Robbery i s defined as follows: A person commits the crime of r o b b e r y i n d e g r e e i f he v i o l a t e s S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 8 - 4 3 a n d 63 App. CR-08-1177 "(1) I s armed w i t h a d e a d l y dangerous instrument; § 13A-8-41, A l a . Code 1975. provides, weapon or S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 8 - 4 3 , A l a . Code 1975, in pertinent part: "(a) A person commits the crime of r o b b e r y i n the t h i r d degree i f i n the course of c o m m i t t i n g a t h e f t he: "(1) Uses f o r c e a g a i n s t the p e r s o n of t h e owner o r any p e r s o n p r e s e n t w i t h i n t e n t to overcome h i s p h y s i c a l resistance or p h y s i c a l power of r e s i s t a n c e ; or "(2) Threatens the imminent use of f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n of t h e owner o r any p e r s o n p r e s e n t w i t h i n t e n t t o c o m p e l a c q u i e s c e n c e to the t a k i n g of or e s c a p i n g w i t h the p r o p e r t y . " Moreover, there § 13A-8-41(b), i s a presumption that Ala. a Code robbery in a manner reasonably to b e l i e v e to i t to lead be any provides defendant a r m e d d u r i n g a r o b b e r y when t h e d e f e n d a n t "fashioned 1975, possesses person a deadly was or an article present dangerous instrument." " ( b ) P o s s e s s i o n t h e n a n d t h e r e o f an article u s e d o r f a s h i o n e d i n a manner t o l e a d any p e r s o n who i s p r e s e n t r e a s o n a b l y t o b e l i e v e i t t o be a d e a d l y weapon o r d a n g e r o u s i n s t r u m e n t , o r any v e r b a l o r o t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by t h e d e f e n d a n t t h a t he i s t h e n a n d t h e r e so a r m e d , i s p r i m a f a c i e evidence 64 fact is who weapon in that CR-08-1177 under s u b s e c t i o n armed." (a) o f t h i s § 1 3 A - 8 - 4 1 ( b ) , A l a . Code L.M. testified back pocket knife. could This an i n s t r u m e n t I t was, be u s e d a t h e man that who attacked so her had i n h i s s h e b e l i e v e d a t t h e t i m e was a an object that her i f her attacker i f believed rebuttable he was 1975. i n any e v e n t , to k i l l testimony, create that section that by desired the jury, presumption that L.M. was Ware believed t o do s o . sufficient was to armed w i t h a knife. Because establish trial court robbery the a the prima State facie properly to the j u r y . case, presented case of submitted This, was s u f f i c i e n t sufficient f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery, the along evidence, charge with did of f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery. not acquittal err in denying and s u b m i t t i n g Ware's the case Burglary 65 to the of f i r s t - d e g r e e the other evidence i n i f b e l i e v e d by t h e j u r y , t o a l l o w the j u r y to f i n d beyond a reasonable guilty evidence d o u b t t h a t Ware Therefore, motion the t r i a l for a to the j u r y . was court judgment of CR-08-1177 In 1993, the 1 5 degree b u r g l a r y time included "(a) A p e r s o n the first degree enters or remains intent to commit e f f e c t i n g e n t r y or f l i g h t therefrom, crime: "(1) weapon." The State unlawfully rape her a could I t was, be This used to testimony, prove L.M. i n any kill the evidence first- definition: the that an i f her by the as object attacker the a intent deadly jury, i t was set f o r t h above, and Joiner, that to Ware commit man who she believed instrument that event, her or indicating with testified i f believed reasons committed, explosives L.M.'s h o u s e first-degree burglary For following with presented theft. was commits the crime of b u r g l a r y i n i f he k n o w i n g l y and unlawfully unlawfully in a dwelling with a crime therein, and, i f , in w h i l e i n d w e l l i n g or i n immediate he o r a n o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e i n h i s b a c k p o c k e t an knife. offense the armed entered and/or had Is the that was in was believed to do sufficient defined Ware's attacked L.M. desired a so. to 1993. convictions are affirmed. AFFIRMED. Kellum, concurs 1 5 Burke, i n the The JJ., concur. Windom, J., result. f i r s t - d e g r e e - b u r g l a r y s t a t u t e was 66 amended i n 2006.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.