Key Supreme Court Briefs And Materials In Bullcoming v. New Mexico (No. 09-10876)
| Date | Document |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court Documents | |
| June 23, 2011 | Supreme Court held that the surrogate testimony of a second forensic analyst, who did not observe or review the original blood alcohol content results, was inadmissible; specifically, the defendant has the right "to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, tocross-examine that particular scientist." Bullcoming v. Mew Mexico, 564 U.S. _, _ S.Ct. _ (2011). |
| March 2, 2011 | Supreme Oral Argument Transcript / Listen To Audio File
|
| September 28, 2010 | Certiorari Review Granted in Bullcoming v. New Mexico (No. 09-10876). |
| Docket | Supreme Court Docket |
| Merits Briefs | |
| Nov. 30, 2010 | Brief for Petitioner (Donald Bullcoming) |
| Jan. 10, 2011 | Brief for Respondent (State of New Mexico) |
| Feb. 9, 2011 | Reply Brief for Petitioner (Donald Bullcoming) |
| Nov. 30, 2010 | Joint Appendix |
| Amicus Curiae Briefs | |
| Jan. 17, 2011 | Brief For The States Of California, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, District Of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming in Support of Respondent |
| Jan. 17, 2011 | Brief for the National District Attorneys Association, California District Attorneys Association, American Society Of Crime Lab Directors, California Association Of Crime Laboratory Directors, International Association Of Coroners And Medical Examiners, National Association Of Medical Examiners, California State Coroners Association in Support of Respondent |
| Jan. 17, 2011 | Brief for the New Mexico Department Of Health Scientific Laboratory Division in Support of Respondent |
| Dec. 7, 2010 | Brief for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, Public Defender Service For The District Of Columbia, Alaska Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, Alameda Public Defender’s Office, County Of Sacramento Office Of The Public Defender, San Francisco Office Of The Public Defender, and 20 Other Defender Organizations in Support of Petitioner |
| Dec. 7, 2010 | Brief for Richard D. Friedman in Support of Petitioner |
| Dec. 7, 2010 | Brief for The Innocence Network in Support of Petitioner |
| Dec. 7, 2010 | Brief for the Evidence Law Professors in Support of Petitioner |
| Dec. 6, 2010 | Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National College For Dui Defense, and New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association in Support of Petitioner |
| Certiorari Petition Briefs | |
| May 12, 2010 | Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Donald Bullcoming) |
| Aug. 20, 2010 | Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari (State of New Mexico) |
| Aug. 31, 2010 | Reply Brief (Donald Bullcoming) |
| September 28, 2010 | Certiorari Review Granted |
| State Court Record Materials | |
| Feb. 12, 2010 | New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Under Review: New Mexico v. Bullcoming, 147 N.M. 487, 226 P.3d 1 (Feb. 12, 2010) (No. 2010-NMSC-007) ("Although the blood alcohol report was testimonial, we conclude that its admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause, because the analyst who prepared the report was a mere scrivener who simply transcribed the results generated by a gas chromatograph machine and, therefore, the live, in-court testimony of another qualified analyst was sufficient to satisfy Defendant’s right to confrontation."). |
| Aug. 14, 2005 | Report of Blood Alcohol Analysis (State's Exhibit 1) |
Blog Posts On Bullcoming v. New Mexico
Blog posts from the Federal Evidence Blog discussing the Bullcoming v. New Mexico case are available here.
