The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Bullcoming v. New Mexico. The Supreme Court filings in the case can be found on the Scotusblog.
The Bullcoming case is an important case for Massachusetts DUI lawyers. In Bullcoming, Donald Bullcoming was convicted of aggravated felony DWI after a blood alcohol test was admitted into evidence claiming that his blood alcohol level was well above the legal limit of .08. The State admitted evidence of the defendant's blood alcohol level not by calling the individual that performed the chemical analysis of the defendant's blood but by calling a surrogate witness. This surrogate witness was unable to respond effectively during cross examination because the witness did not participate in the chemical analysis of the defendant's blood. Accordingly, the defendant argued that he was being denied his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation under the United States Supreme Court's Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts holding.
Three Lawyers from the National College of DUI Defense, Leonard Stamm, Justice McShane and Ronald Moore filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the defendant. Click here to read the brief.
The Brief explains the science behind blood alcohol testing and documents that improper blood alcohol testing has led to wrongful DUI convictions in other parts of the country. The Brief argues that cross examination is vital to ensure the reliability of the forensic science behind blood alcohol testing involving gas chromatography and suggests what an effective cross examination would entail if the individual that performed the test were testifying on the witness stand rather than a surrogate witness with no personal knowledge of the testing of the defendant's blood.
As a Massachusetts DUI lawyer, the arguments raised by the defendant's in Bullcoming can be used to excluded blood test evidence from being introduced into evidence. When the Commonwealth attempts to introduce hospital medical records of a defendant following an accident, thought to be caused by a drunk driver, the Commonwealth should have witnesses that took the blood from the defendant available to testify in court; without live testimony, a defendant is being denied the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The Bullcoming decision could provide an important grounds for excluding blood test evidence at Massachusetts DUI trials.
In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz, I would expect the Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court and find that the defendant's right of confrontation was violated by the failure of the State to have the blood alcohol analysis testify just as the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated in Melendez-Diaz when the Commonwealth did not provide the defendant an opportunity to cross examine the chemist who analyzed the drugs during a trial for drug trafficking.
