CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Hearsay
......Confrontation
.........Criminal-State Cases
............Crawford: Testifying Expert
17 Cards On This Topic:

D forfeited challenge to reviewing expert's testimony as it came years after Crawford, and many published appellate opinions had since applied Crawford to the admission of forensic evidence.

Admitting testimony of pathologist who did not perform Vs' autopsies was harmless error where E gave his own, independent opinions about causes of death after reviewing autopsy reports and photographs.

Any error in E's testimony about DNA testing a colleague conducted was harmless as E conducted and testified about her own testing that was consistent with her colleague's results.

Cellmark director's unrebutted testimony about her independent scientific conclusions as to DNA testing done by others established that D's DNA matched that of rape V's assailant; 6th Amend. issue not reached.

Even assuming testimony of E, whose retired partner conducted autopsy, violated confrontation clause, no prejudice as E independently agreed with partner's opinions, and issues not in dispute at trial.

If D denied right to confront DNA analyst, error harmless as D admitted having sex with V, which the analysis confirmed; as to whether sex was consensual, DNA analysis provided no insight and there was no prejudice.

Trial ct. correct in overruling D's objection to portion of E's report and in permitting E to testify about it where critical portions of report were not made with the requisite degree of formality or solemnity to be considered testimonial.

E's testimony re autopsy report did not give rise to confrontation right by D to question report's preparer—facts not so formal as to be testimonial, and crim. investigation not the primary purpose for recording the facts.

If trial ct. erred in allowing lab. director's testimony as to results of drug analyses he supervised, error not prejudicial where evidence against D overwhelming and exclusion would not have affected the outcome.

DNA report relied on by expert but prepared by another was not testimonial under Crawford and Davis and reliance did not violate D's 6th Amendment rights.

Even if much of testifying expert's testimony simply recited observations ••and conclusions•• contained in autopsy examiner's report, and both were erroneously admitted, error would have been harmless under Chapman.

Under Dungo, the trial court's decision to admit 1981 autopsy report, testified to by a non-participating examiner in 2012, was correct and did not violate appellant's confrontation clause rights.

Where gang expert's testimony was of the same type of information gathered and used by every gang expert in the field, and was not testimonial, it did not violate Ds' confrontation clause rights.

Extra-judicial stmts ME relied on in reaching 'homicide' determination re baby's manner of death did not qualify as testimonial as they failed the formality and primary purpose tests of Williams and Dungo.

Based on case history of DNA analysis, Williams' plurality, and Geier decision, D's confrontation rights were not violated by lab director's testimony about tests conducted by an analyst.

DNA technician's reliance on another analyst's test results and technician's testimony concerning raw data, while subject to cross-exam., does not violate Confrontation Clause.

Based upon existing CA and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the forensic analysis relied on by DNA experts was not testimonial and D's right to confront witnesses against him was not violated by its admission.