This term, three Supreme Court cases concern aspects of federal evidence law. A short update on these cases was provided in the March Evidence Alert! This page presents the materials covered in the Alert for readers who have not signed up for this free service.
Argument Set On Confrontation Clause
And Forensic Expert Testimony
Tomorrow, on Wednesday, March 2, 2011, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a significant Confrontation Clause issue in Bullcoming v. New Mexico (No. 09-10876). The question presented is:
"Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements."
The Federal Evidence Review and Federal Evidence Blog will monitor the oral argument. For more information on the case, see the blog post summarizing the positions of the parties based on the briefs; and the Bullcoming v. New Mexico Resource Page.
Court Clarifies When Statements
During An Ongoing Emergency Are Testimonial
Yesterday, on February 28, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the "primary purpose" of police questioning of a victim who had been shot was "to meet an ongoing emergency," rendering the statements in response non-testimonial and admissible at trial. The Court held, in a six to two ruling, "that the circumstances of the interaction between [the victim] ... and the police objectively indicate that the 'primary purpose of the interrogation' was 'to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.' Therefore, [the victim's ... identification and description of the shooter and the location of the shooting were not testimonial statements, and their admission at Bryant’s trial did not violate the Confrontation Clause."Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. _ (2011) (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006)).
For more information, see the Michigan v. Bryant Resource Page (providing links to the briefs and other blog commentary).
State Secrets Privilege
A significant State Secrets Privilege case remains pending before the Supreme Court. On January 18, 2011, the Court heard oral argument in two consolidated cases involving the privilege asserted in a military contract for stealth aircraft. In the first significant case presenting the issue on the scope of the privilege in decades, it remains to be seen whether the case may provide a chance to resolve under what circumstances the government can invoke the privilege (including the use the privilege simultaneously as a sword and a shield) and the role of the court in reviewing the privilege.
For more on the consolidated cases, including links for the briefs filed in the case and a review of the oral argument, see the recent blog posts: Argument Preview and Briefs; Argument Review and Summary; Listen to the Oral Argument
- Evidence Alert! provides updates on evidence issues, blog postings, and other evidence developments.
- Safe List: To ensure delivery of future emails without interruption, add EvidenceAlert@federalevidence.com to your safe or white list or address book.
- This is a post-only message from an unintended mailbox. Please do not attempt to respond to this message. To send a message, please use this email address: Info@federalevidence.com.
- Subscription Information: To update your preferences, visit http://federalevidence.com/lists/?p=preferences. Please note that it may take ten business days to update changes. If this email has reached you in error, we apologize. Click on this link to unsubscribe. Your privacy is important to us. Please review our Privacy Policy by visiting: http://federalevidence.com/privacy.html .
- www.federalevidence.com © 2011 All Rights Reserved.
- Federal Evidence Review
- Highlighting Recent Federal Evidence Cases & Developments
- P.O. Box 6883, Arlington, VA 22206-0883; Info@federalevidence.com.
Comments
Post new comment