Bullcoming v. New Mexico
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bullcoming_v._New_Mexico an entity of type: Thing
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), is a significant 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extend to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Donald Bullcoming v. State of New Mexico
xsd:integer
31267421
xsd:integer
1055208313
rdf:langString
Kennedy
xsd:integer
9
rdf:langString
Roberts, Breyer, Alito
rdf:langString
Scalia; Sotomayor, Kagan ; Thomas
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
647
xsd:integer
564
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-02
xsd:integer
2011
rdf:langString
Bullcoming v. New Mexico,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-23
xsd:integer
2011
rdf:langString
Donald Bullcoming v. State of New Mexico
rdf:langString
A second surrogate analyst's testimony about the statements in the forensic report of a separate certifying analyst violates the Confrontation Clause.
rdf:langString
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
rdf:langString
Ginsburg
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
rdf:langString
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), is a significant 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extend to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause. The case follows a line of decisions, including Crawford v. Washington (2004) and Davis v. Washington (2006), that altered the Court's interpretation of the Confrontation Clause guarantee and clarified its application only to "testimonial" statements.
rdf:langString
Sotomayor
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
6313