Bullcoming v. New Mexico Resource Page (Key Briefs and Other Materials)

This Bullcoming v. New Mexico Resource Page below provides access to key briefs and other materials on the pending Supreme Court case.

A summary of the case is also provided in the Introduction and Overview, and further coverage is included in posts in the Federal Evidence Blog. After the Supreme Court's opinion is issued in Bullcoming v. New Mexico (No. 09-10876), this Resource Page will highlight below further significant cases applying the analysis from the opinion.

Key Supreme Court Briefs And Materials In Bullcoming v. New Mexico (No. 09-10876)

Date Document
Supreme Court Documents
June 23, 2011Supreme 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, 2011Supreme Oral Argument Transcript / Listen To Audio File

  • For Petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford Law School, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford, California
  • For Repondent: Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, New Mexico
September 28, 2010Certiorari Review Granted in Bullcoming v. New Mexico (No. 09-10876).
DocketSupreme Court Docket
Merits Briefs
Nov. 30, 2010Brief for Petitioner (Donald Bullcoming)
Jan. 10, 2011Brief for Respondent (State of New Mexico)
Feb. 9, 2011Reply Brief for Petitioner (Donald Bullcoming)
Nov. 30, 2010Joint 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, 2010Brief 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, 2010Brief for Richard D. Friedman in Support of Petitioner
Dec. 7, 2010Brief for The Innocence Network in Support of Petitioner
Dec. 7, 2010Brief 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, 2010Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Donald Bullcoming)
Aug. 20, 2010Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari (State of New Mexico)
Aug. 31, 2010Reply Brief (Donald Bullcoming)
September 28, 2010Certiorari Review Granted
State Court Record Materials
Feb. 12, 2010New 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, 2005Report 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.

Return To Top

Federal Rules of Evidence