Criminal Procedure — confrontation clause

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — confrontation clause

It does not violate the Confrontation Clause for a technician from the Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory to rely on a scientific report that profiled the DNA left on the victims by their attacker.

“We are bound in this case by the judgment in Williams, and the narrowest holding agreed-to by a majority (albeit with different rationales) is that the Illinois DNA technician’s reliance on the outside laboratory’s report did not violate Williams’s right to confrontation because the report was not ‘testimonial’ and therefore did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (‘When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, “the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds ….”’) (quoted source omitted, ellipses by Marks). Under the facts here, the Orchid Cellmark report was not ‘testimonial.’”

Affirmed.

Publication in the official reports is recommended.

2010AP2363-CR & 2010AP2364-CR State v. Deadwiller

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, McMahon, J., Fine, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Rosen, Mark S., Waukesha; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Whelan, Maura F.J., Madison