WPCw[ m+Ȭct?HCL5LLOAȬ/(?Q1%r?Rݖ3!rVJ2b$&gF2i=]##H>\TҠLqD2;>=%z~+he@;{= tMC }x{a zYs_Nծ)I6@Yb-dB@_5ڼK VYLp R"Wk9ZS^8JX8 Us0z6FLrD=Qd:89Q8dkJt_nW}UNQӉE#qC<<߅_N'bB}&/NC.H&#,e/PKt2) 0v* 0`* 0`* 0`F+ 0.+ 0`+ 084, 0l, 02>- 0p- 0::. 0Yt. 0_. 0,/ 080 0<1 B*2 D/2 D+3 0D3 D/4 04 065 05 0:6 0^ 7 0<i7 1e7U6 8U>@8U*~8N8 08 049 9 0 w: 1s: 72r;f; B ;a; 0; 0< 0R= 0-> 0D? 1u`@ 72@TA%AwC<FE 0F 0|G 0sH 0jI 0^J 0RK 0CL 04M 0"N 0O D5PP D5KPKPKPKPPT]RU:{R{R{R{R{R{R{R{R{R{R{R{R{R{R{R{R 0RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR D5S B*S D5T B*OT 0NyT B7T B7TTTT B5U5U5U D5RU BU D1U D5UU D5 V B*?V CiV CV CV CV CV CV CW CW C9W CSW CmW CW ASWW.DXX D5X B3Y D7PY D/YY 0Y 0DZ DMZ BB5[HP LaserJet 2200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(vr$)   ) )   ,@E Z"Book Antiqua I< gg:ICHARD3|xU0CEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) (1)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5 (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,KS*CODEKL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4NV2Keyboard KL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS <z:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7A(X7  ?N%2A`Arial?  SM\  `&Times New RomanS7B(X7&  d d@)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7D(X7  ?N%2A`Arial?  SM\  `&Times New RomanS7B(X7@)2dxd0KS.SampleKL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8KS6TypewriterKL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   ! 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#citeas((Cite as: 41 Cal.4th 555, *597, 161 P.3d 104, **134, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 580, ***614)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)T1) dTABLE A($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# SPQYZ[\x33MQUY]aeiBullets List^] ; r#$56d  him.nontestifyingstatementsdeclarants"prosecutoriallyNACDLGeierrecordationMelendez S.Ct L.Edanalyzed, T]heAmendment. withtrial.statementsexamination. N]ottrial,evidence. it, interrogation.againstdefendant,manipulation.DungocriminalistRutterschmidtBriscoe m -$X&XXX1]XX&   `   1    _ FDAPthanksLawClerk_Jen_Ԁ_Stanger_Ԁforherassistancein  preparingthesematerials. 2 -$X&XXX1]XX&   `   2    _ FDAPthanksLawClerkEmilyOConnorforher  assistanceinpreparingthesematerials.2P+M 0_level1  , 8.4 <DL!823  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level4   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level5   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level6   /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level7  4 /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level9   ,"h hhDL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  (3t$ #!`X9XXX`9XXX9 , gLX9gLvgLUSUS.,  WWWW)!dxdx)!dxdx  t"uX XXXu XXuX  , v1]Xu v1]v1]USUS.,  _Note:AppendixAisanExcel  Spreadsheet.Itisavailableinthe  PDFversionofthesematerialsandas (( aseparateExceldownloadonthe << FDAPwebsite. ; r#$56d,@E Z"Book Antiqua (3t$ #!`X9XXX`9XXX9 , gLX9gLvgLUSUS.,  )!dxdx&p d Pd)!dxdx&p Pd d(O$3+0 d d d3+0 d d dP Pd)!dxdx d)! dxdx@@@@)!dxdx)!dxdx&P d dd ddd(d2dThick/Thin 2[ d -d vr!X&XXX  1]XX&   __1]@ ## FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @"TRAININGSEMINAR $ @"#0#January30,2010 H y @/ / CRAWFORDAFTERMELENDEZDIAZ! 4  @ THEGIFTTHATKEEPSONGIVING? D  @"# y$#Richard_Braucher_ #1]ý#Ԉ  $t ______l ` ConfrontationClause:TheSixthAmendmentprovidesthat [i]n   allcriminalprosecutions,theaccusedshallenjoytheright...tobe  confrontedwiththewitnessesagainsthim. (U.S.Const.,6thAmend.)   l ` Crawford   <  `  ` Crawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.36:ConfrontationClause  J guaranteesadefendantsrighttoconfrontthose whobear T  testimonyagainsthim.(Id.,atp.51.)Itattachestoatestimonialout ^  ofcourtstatementofferedagainsttheaccusedinacriminal h  prosecution,renderingtestimonialstatementsbyanontestifying "r  witnessinadmissibleunlessthewitnessisunavailableandwas ,|  previouslysubjecttocross-examinationbythedefendant.Crawford 6 expresslyabrogatedtheruleofOhiov.Roberts(1980)448U.S.56,which @ haddeemedtheConfrontationClausesatisfiedifthestatement J containedadequateguaranteesoftrustworthinessorindiciaof T reliability,holding Tobesure,theClausesultimategoalistoensure ^ reliabilityofevidence,butitisaproceduralratherthanasubstantive h guarantee.Itcommands,notthatevidencebereliable,butthat r reliabilitybeassessedinaparticularmanner:bytestinginthecrucible | ofcross-examination.(Crawford,supra,541U.S.atp.61.)   ` Crawfords coreclassoftestimonialstatements :   T(33"3"   ` 3 2  I  .3  0   expartein-courttestimonyoritsfunctional  equivalent!thatis,materialsuchasaffidavits,custodial   examinations,priortestimonythatthedefendantwas ! unabletocross-examine,orsimilarpretrialstatementsthat " declarantswouldreasonablyexpecttobeused #& prosecutorially...(Crawford,atp.51,quotingBrieffor $0  Petitioneratp.23.)3 ݌%:!   Ќ  "3"   ` 3W2  II  .3  0   extrajudicialstatements...containedinformalized 'N#" testimonialmaterials,suchasaffidavits,depositions,prior )X$# testimony,orconfessions...(Crawford,atpp.5152, *b%$ quotingWhitev.Illinois(1992)502U.S.346,365(Thomas, +l&% J.))3W݌&,v'&  Ќ   0-(' "3"   ` 32  III  .3  0   statementsthatweremadeundercircumstanceswhich  wouldleadanobjectivewitnessreasonablytobelievethat   thestatementwouldbeavailableforuseatalatertrial.   (Crawford,atp.52,quotingNACDLamicusbriefatp.3.)  3݌   Ќ  l0 ` Geier  4` `   ` Peoplev.Geier(2007)41Cal.4th555:testimonyaboutaDNA  B report,laboratorynotesandtestresultsconveyedviaatestifying  L  supervisor,ratherthanthelaboratoryanalystwhoperformedthetests, V  didnotrunafouloftheConfrontationClause,becausethereport,notes `  andresultswerenottestimonialevidence.(Geier,supra,41Cal.4that j  pp.602604.) $t   ` Rationale: 8 ! ! (03T"3"   ` 32(  1  )3  0   theresultsofscientifictestsarenotaccusatory,butare L ratherinherentlyneutralandreliable.Theyarenot V accusatorybecausealabanalystwhoconductsthetests ` doesso aspartofherjob,notinordertoincriminatethe j defendant, andisnot,strictlyspeaking,awitnesswho t bearstestimony against thedefendant.(Geier,atp. ~ 607.)3݌  Ќ  "3"   ` 3x2(  2  )3  0   theresultswerenottestimonialbecausetheyrepresented   acontemporaneousrecordationofobservableevents  ratherthanthedocumentationofpastevents,evenif   theywerepreparedforuseattrial.(Geier,atp.603606, !  relyingonDavisv.Washington(2006)547U.S.813.)3x݌"  Ќ  "3"   ` 32(  3  )3  0   forensictestresultsaregenerallyadmissibleasbusiness $(  records.(Geier,atp.606,citingseveralpostCrawfordout %2!  ofstatecases.)3݌&<"!  Ќ  l0 ` Melendez-Diaz,ItsPotentialApplications,andtheFutureof  *Z%$ Geier +^&%` `   ` Melendez-Diazv.Massachusetts(2009)557U.S.----,[129S.Ct.. -l(' 2527,174L.Ed.2d314]:certificatesofdruganalysis(swornstatements  ofchemicalanalysisperformedbyastatelaboratoryuponpolice   request,asrequiredbyMassachusettsstatelaw),wereadmittedattrial  as primafacieevidenceofthecomposition,quality,andthenet  weightofthenarcotic...analyzed, understatelaw.(129S.Ct.atp. ( 2531.)Held: [T]heanalystsaffidavitsweretestimonialstatements,  2 andtheanalystswere witnessesforpurposesoftheSixth  < Amendment. (Id.,atp.2532.)Therefore, [a]bsentashowingthatthe  F analystswereunavailabletotestifyattrialandthatpetitionerhada  P prioropportunitytocross-examinethem,petitionerwasentitledto be  Z  confrontedwith theanalystsattrial. (Ibid.) d   ` Rationale: Thereislittledoubtthatthedocumentsatissuein (x  thiscasefallwithinthecoreclassoftestimonialstatements described 2  inCrawford.(Melendez-Diaz,129S.Ct.atp.2532,citingCrawford,541 < U.S.atpp.5152.) F "S;"  S;"0 ` 2(  1  )3  0 ` `   Thedocumentsare quiteplainlyaffidavits. Z (Melendez-Diaz,129S.Ct.atp.2532.)(SeeCrawford d discussion,ante,atpp.12,I&II.)S;""݌n  Ќ  "S;"  S;u$0 ` 2(  2  )3  0 ` `   Thefactinquestionisthatthesubstancefound...was,  astheprosecutionclaimed,cocaine"theprecise  testimonytheanalystswouldbeexpectedtoprovideif  calledattrial.Thecertificatesarefunctionallyidentical  tolive,in-courttestimony,doingpreciselywhatawitness  doesondirectexamination. (Melendez-Diaz,129S.Ct.at  p.2532.)(SeeCrawforddiscussion,ante,atp.1,I.)S;u$$݌   Ќ  "S;"  S;~'0 ` 2(  3  )3  0 ` `   [N]otonlyweretheaffidavitsmadeunder "" circumstanceswhichwouldleadanobjectivewitness #, reasonablytobelievethatthestatementwouldbe $6  availableforuseatalatertrial, butunderMassachusetts %@!  lawthesolepurposeoftheaffidavitswastoprovideprima &J"! facieevidenceofthecomposition,quality,andthenet (T#" weightoftheanalyzedsubstance.(Melendez-Diaz,129 )^$# S.Ct.atp.2532.)(SeeCrawforddiscussion,ante,atp.2,III.)S;~''݌*h%$  Ќ   ` Applications:MelendezDiazispotentiallyapplicabletoany ,,|'& forensicevidencesubjecttolabanalysisthatthestateemploystoprove 6-(' upanelementofthecrime:e.g.,drugandalcoholtesting,ballistics  tests,DNA,fingerprintanalysis,toxicology,serology,andautopsy   reports,sexualassaultexaminationreports,andchainofcustody  regardingforensicevidence.Outsidetherealmofforensicevidence,  MelendezDiaz,suggeststhatclerkscertificatesattestingtothe ( nonexistenceofrecords( CNRs ),ifnecessarytoestablishanecessary  2 elementofthecrime,wouldalsorequirealivewitnesstoovercomea  < confrontationobjection.SeeAppendixAforacollectionofcases  F applyingMelendezDiaztoparticulartypesofforensicevidence.  P  `  ` Themajoritysreplytorespondentanddissents potpourriof d  analyticargumentsinanefforttoavoidthisratherstraightforward n  applicationofourholdinginCrawford: (x  *VWXddd Xdd Xdd X  , dd , dd +  <<  Dissent    Majority   Labanalystsarenot 6  accusatorywitnessesbecause @ _ they_Ԁdonotdirectlyaccuse[a J defendant]ofwrongdoing; T rather,theirtestimonyis ^ inculpatoryonlywhentaken h togetherwithother_evidence. _ r (_Melendez_-Diaz,129S.Ct.atp. | 2533.)   Notsofast:SixthAmendment 6 contemplatesonlytwokindsof @ witnesses:(1)againstthe J defendant(Confrontation T Clause)and(2)thosein ^ defendantsfavor(Compulsory h Process);no thirdcategory. r   Totheextenttheanalystswere |! witnesses(aquestionresolved " above),theycertainlyprovided # testimonyagainstpetitioner, $ provingonefactnecessaryfor  % hisconviction-thatthe !& substancehepossessedwas "' cocaine.(Id.,atpp.25332534.)  #( Analystsarenot typical, d _ ordinary _Ԁor conventional n witnesses,asenvisionedbythe (x ConfrontationClause,because 2 (1)theydonotrecallevents <  observedinthepast,butrather F  report nearcontemporaneous P  observationsofatest(relying Z   onDavis),(2)they _ observe[d_] d   neitherthecrimenorany n  humanactionrelatedto_it, _Ԁand x  (3)theydonotrespond_ to_   questionsunder_interrogation. _   (Id.,atpp.25342535.)    Wrong:Asfor(1),dissent d misunderstandsDavis: n statementsinDavisrelatedonly (x tothestatementsadmissibility 2 underthepresentsense <  impressionexceptiontothe F  hearsayrule,butwerestill P  subjecttoconfrontation;(2): Z  Thereisnoauthorityforthis d  proposition;besides,underthis n  logicacrimescenereport x  wouldbeadmissible;(3):No   authoritythatonewho   volunteerstestimonyisanyless   a_ witness_Ԁ_against _Ԁthe  _defendant, _Ԁthanonewhois  respondstointerrogation.(Id.,  atp.2535.)    Labanalysistestimonyis \! different:itistheresultof f"  neutral,scientifictestingand p# not_ prone_Ԁtodistortionor z$ _manipulation. _ԀBesides,there % isnoreasontoconfrontthe & forensicanalyst,essentially ' becauseheisaneutral (  laboratoryprofessional  ) whosescientificworkis !* inherentlyreliable. "+ (_Melendez_-Diaz,129S.Ct.atp. #, 2536.)  $$ -  Thisargumentislittlemore \. thananinvitationtoreturnto f/ ouroverruleddecisionin p0 Roberts.AffirmingCrawford: z1 theConfrontationClause 2  commands,notthatevidence 3 bereliable,butthatreliabilitybe 4 assessedinaparticularmanner: 5 bytestinginthecrucibleof  6 cross-examination.(Id.,atp. !7 2536,quotingCrawford,541U.S. "8 atp.61.)Labtestingisnot #9 inherentlyneutralorreliable: $$ :  Forensicevidenceisnot %.!; uniquelyimmunefromtherisk &8"< ofmanipulation(fraudulent 'B#= andincompetentanalysts).(Id., (L$> atpp.25362538.)! !  *V%? Thecertificatesofdruganalysis d shouldbeadmissiblewithout n  confrontationasakintoofficial (x orbusinessrecords.(Id.,atp. 2 2538.)  <   [T]heaffidavitsdonotqualify d astraditionalofficialorbusiness n records,andeveniftheydid, (x theirauthorswouldbesubject 2  toconfrontationnonetheless. <   Documentskeptintheregular F   courseofbusinessmay P   ordinarilybeadmittedattrial Z   despitetheirhearsaystatus.But d  thatisnotthecaseifthe n  regularlyconductedbusiness x  activityistheproductionof   evidenceforuseattrial.(Id.,at   p.2538.)    Theskywillfall.  4  Perhapsthebestindication 4 thattheskywillnotfallafter > todaysdecisionisthatithas H notdonesoalready.Many R stateshavealreadyapplied \ Crawfordtoforensiclab f evidence,whileothershave p enacted noticeanddemand z statutes,permittingthe  defendanttoassert(orforfeitby  silence)hisConfrontation  Clauserightafterreceiving   noticeoftheprosecutions  ! intenttouseaforensicanalysts !" report.(Id.,atpp.25402541.) "#   ` CasesgrantedreviewtodecidetheviabilityofGeier: &^!% Peoplev.Dungo,S176886,(3rdDist)rev.granted12/02/2009: (1)Was "(r#' defendantdeniedhisrightofconfrontationundertheSixth ,)|$( Amendmentwhenoneforensicpathologisttestifiedtothemannerand 6*%) causeofdeathinamurdercasebaseduponanautopsyreport @+&* preparedbyanotherpathologist?(2)Howdoesthedecisionofthe J,'+ UnitedStatesSupremeCourtin_Melendez_-Diazv.Massachusetts(2009) T-(, 557U.S.___,129S.Ct.2527,174_L.Ed_.2d314,affectthiscourtsdecision  inPeoplev.Geier(2007)41Cal.4th555?   Peoplev.Lopez,S177046,(4thDist.,Div.1)rev.granted12/02/2009: (1)  WasdefendantdeniedhisrightofconfrontationundertheSixth ( Amendmentwhenthetrialcourtadmittedintoevidencetheresultsof  2 blood-alcoholleveltestsandareportpreparedbyacriminalistwhodid  < nottestifyattrial?(2)Wastheerrorprejudicialinlightofthetestimony  F ofasupervisingcriminalistabouttestingproceduresatthelab?(3)  P HowdoesthedecisionoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin  Z  _Melendez_-Diazv.Massachusetts(2009)557U.S.___,129S.Ct.2527,174 d  _L.Ed_.2d314,affectthiscourtsdecisioninPeoplev.Geier(2007)41 n  Cal.4th555? (x  Peoplev.Rutterschmidt,S176213,(2ndDist.,Div.5)rev.granted < 12/02/2009: (1)Wasdefendantdeniedherrightofconfrontation F undertheSixthAmendmentwhenasupervisingcriminalisttestified P astotheresultofdrugtestsandthereportpreparedbyanother Z criminalist?(2)HowdoesthedecisionoftheUnitedStatesSupreme d Courtin_Melendez_-Diazv.Massachusetts(2009)557U.S.___,129S.Ct. n 2527,174_L.Ed_.2d314,affectthiscourtsdecisioninPeoplev.Geier x (2007)41Cal.4th555?  Peoplev.Gutierrez,S176620,(2ndDist.,Div.1)rev.granted12/02/2009:   (1)WasdefendantdeniedhisrightofconfrontationundertheSixth  Amendmentwhen(a)onenursepractitionertestifiedastotheresults  ofasexualassaultexaminationandthereportpreparedbyanother  nursepractitioner,and(b)asupervisingcriminalisttestifiedastothe   resultofDNAtestsandthereportpreparedbyanothercriminalist?(2) ! HowdoesthedecisionoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin "" _Melendez_-Diazv.Massachusetts(2009)557U.S.___,129S.Ct.2527,174 #, _L.Ed_.2d314,affectthiscourtsdecisioninPeoplev.Geier(2007)41 $6  Cal.4th555? %@!  SeeAppendixBforcollectionofotherCaliforniacaseswhichhave (T#" considered_Melendez_-Diaz(includingsomenotyetfinal). )^$#  l ` Briscoev.Virginia  (andtheFutureof_Melendez_-Diaz) "+r&%  ` Briscoev.Virginia (07-11191)Cert.Granted6/29/2009 0-(' Questionpresented: Ifastateallowsaprosecutortointroducea  certificateofaforensiclaboratoryanalysis,withoutpresentingthe   testimonyoftheanalystwhopreparedthecertificate,doesthestate  avoidviolatingtheConfrontationClauseoftheSixthAmendmentby  providingthattheaccusedhasarighttocalltheanalystashisown ( witness?  2  ` % R %R\   P   C1] AppendixA_b #  1      _Ԁ #1]C;]#1]  d #1]^#tp[KGnrM `Bd d@E9 9< Z q q    < C1] AppendixBc #  2      ׀ #1]C_#  (x  e   8dd 81.Peoplev._Velazquez_Ԁ2009Cal.App.LEXIS2080   Kdefghijkl(00 "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed/a2-3      Datefiled:Dec.24,2009d/a b݌  2 Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edb2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,FourthAppellateDistrict,DivisionTwodbc݌  < Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edd2-3      Unpublisheddde݌  F Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edbf2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:Testimonybyanexpertwhoseopinionisbasedon  P labreportsofnarcoticstestingpreparedbyanontestifyingexpertdbf@g݌  Z  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edh2-3      Holding:CourtconcludesthatGeierisstillgoodlawandapplieshere.Lab d  testresults/reportswerebusinessrecordsratherthantestimonialhearsay, n  andthereforeMelendezDiazdidnotapply.dh~i݌ (x  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed7k2-3      Result:Testimonywasproper,judgmentaffirmed.d7kl݌ 2  Ќ X! X44X!!   2.Peoplev.Vargas(2009)178Cal.App.4th647 P "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!EdXm2-3      Datefiled:Oct.22,2009dXm6n݌ d Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed o2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,SecondAppellateDistrict,DivisionFourd oo݌ n Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edp2-3      Partiallypublisheddpq݌ x Ќ X! X44X!!   "d "  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edr2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:Victimsstatementstoanurseduringasexual  assaultexaminationdrrs݌  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d "  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edt2-3      Holding:CourtconcludesthatunderGeier,thevictimsstatementstoa  nurseweretestimonialandinadmissible.Victimsstatementswere  documentedprimarilyasevidencefortransmittaltolawenforcementand  forpossibleuseincourt.dtu݌  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d "  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edzw2-3      Result:Admittingvictimsstatementswasharmlesserrorastoforcible   rapeconviction.Admittingstatementswasreversibleerrorastoforcible ! penetrationwithaforeignobject.dzwXx݌ "" Ќ X! X44X!!   3.Peoplev._Anunciation_Ԁ2009Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS10128 %@!  "d "  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edz2-3      Datefiled:Dec.22,2009dzp{݌ (T#" Ќ X! X44X!!   "d "  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!EdD|2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,FourthAppellateDistrict,DivisionOnedD|"}݌ )^$# Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed"~2-3      Unpublishedd"~݌ *h%$ Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:Testimonybyanexpertwhoseopinionisbasedon "+r&% autopsyfindingspreparedbyanontestifyingexpertd݌  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Holding:Courtapplies_Melendez_ԄDiazprinciplesandconcludesthatGeieris   seriouslyunderminedby_Melendez_ԄDiaz.Theunderlyingautopsyreport  andfindingsweretestimonial.Thedefendantsrighttoconfrontthe  pathologistwhoconductedtheautopsyandpreparedthereportwasnot ( satisfiedbytheopportunitytocrossexamineanexpertwitnesswhodidnot  2 participateintheautopsy.d҂݌  < Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed҅2-3      Result:Errorwasnotharmless,convictionreversedd҅݌  F Ќ X! X44X!!   4.Peoplev.Martinez2009Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS10039 d  "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Datefiled:Dec.18,2009d݌ (x  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed̉2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,FifthAppellateDistrictd̉݌ 2  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Unpublisheddy݌ < Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed>2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:1)Autopsyreport2)Testimonybyanexpert F whoseopinionisbasedonautopsyreportpreparedbyanontestifying P expertd>݌ Z Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Holding:Courtacknowledgesthesplitinauthorityregarding_Geier_s d continuingvalidityinlightof_Melendez_ԄDiazbutdeclinestodrawitsown n conclusion.CourtdoesnotconsiderConfrontationclauseissue.dy݌ x Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Result:Harmlesserror,judgmentaffirmeddf݌  Ќ X! X44X!!   5.Peoplev._Petillo_Ԁ2009Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS9816  "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Datefiled:Dec.14,2009dȕ݌  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,SecondAppellateDistrict,DivisionFivedz݌   Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed{2-3      Unpublishedd{Y݌ ! Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:Reportsbytwoprintexaminerswhoverified "" findingsofthetestifyingforensicprintspecialistd݌ #, Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!EdI2-3      Holding:CourtconcludesthatnoConfrontationclauseviolationoccurred. $6  Thetestifyingspecialistpersonallyperformedtheprintcomparisonsand %@!  wasquestionedregardingtheverificationreportsduringcross &J"! examination.Courtdoesnotstatewhethertheverificationreportswere (T#" testimonial.dI'݌ )^$# Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edb2-3      Result:Anyerrorinadmittingverificationreportswasharmless,judgment *h%$ affirmeddb@݌ "+r&% Ќ X! X44X!!   6.Peoplev.Vasquez2009Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS9576   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Datefiled:Dec.2,2009d݌  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,SecondAppellateDistrict,DivisionFourdq݌ " Ќ X! X44X!!   "d "  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edr2-3      UnpublisheddrP݌  , Ќ X! X44X!!   "d!"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:Sexualassaultexaminationreport(_SART_Ԁreport)  6 findingsintroducedthroughtestimonyofexpertwhodidnotpersonally  @ conducttheexaminationd݌  J Ќ X! X44X!!   "d""  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Holding:Courtacknowledgesthepost_Melendez_ԄDiazsplitinauthority T  regardingtheadmissibilityofexperttestimonybasedonreportscreatedby ^  nontestifyingwitnesses.However,Courtdoesnotapply_Melendez_ԄDiazor h  statewhetherornotthe_SART_Ԁreportconstitutestestimonialevidence.d݌ "r  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d#"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed 2-3      Result:Harmlesserror,judgmentaffirmedd ݌ ,|  Ќ X! X44X!!   7.Peoplev._Bingley_Ԁ2009Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS8759 J "d$"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edi2-3      Datefiled:Nov.3,2009diG݌ ^ Ќ X! X44X!!   "d%"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,SecondAppellateDistrict,DivisionTwod݌ h Ќ X! X44X!!   "d&"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Unpublisheddֳ݌ r Ќ X! X44X!!   "d'"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:Labreportsofnarcoticstestingdy݌ | Ќ X! X44X!!   "d("  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Eds2-3      Holding:CourtconcludesthatGeierisstillgoodlawandstatesthatunder  Geierthelabreportsare_nontestimonial_.Thelabreportswereproperly  admittedalongwithtestimonyofanexpertwhodidnotpersonallyperform  thenarcoticstesting.dsQ݌  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d)"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edp2-3      Result:JudgmentaffirmeddpN݌  Ќ X! X44X!!   8.Peoplev.Rodriguez2009Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS7560 " "d*"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Datefiled:Sept.22,2009d݌ $$  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d+"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed]2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,ThirdAppellateDistrictd];݌ %.!  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d,"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed,2-3      Unpublishedd, ݌ &8"! Ќ X! X44X!!   "d-"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:Testimonybyanexpertwhoseopinionisbasedon 'B#" labreportsofnarcoticstestingpreparedbyanontestifyingexpertd݌ (L$# Ќ X! X44X!!   "d."  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Holding:Defendantclaimsthatcounselsfailuretoobjecttotheexpert *V%$ testimonyconstitutesineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Courtnotesthat +`&% _Melendez_ԄDiazisdistinguishablefromthecaseatissuebutacknowledges  thatthelabreportwasmostlikelyadmittederroneously.Evenif_Melendez_Ԅ   Diazdidapplytotheexperttestimony,defendantcouldnotmakeshowing  ofprejudicerequiredtoestablishineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.d݌  Ќ X! X44X!!   "d/"  ,B.4 <DL!XB  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Result:Judgmentaffirmedd݌ ( Ќ X! X44X!!   ,B.4 <DL!XB ,H+ 4 <DL!4X!H9.Peoplev.Navarro2009Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS7522  F "d0"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Datefiled:Sept.21,2009d݌  Z  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d1"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,SecondAppellateDistrict,DivisionFourd݌ d  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d2"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Unpublisheddq݌ n  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d3"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed92-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:1)Labreportsofnarcoticstesting2)Testimonyby (x  anexpertwhoseopinionisbasedonlabreportsofnarcoticstesting 2  preparedbyanontestifyingexpertd9݌ < Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d4"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Holding:Courtacknowledgesthatthedocumentsandtestimonyatissue F raiseConfrontationclauseissuesunder_Melendez_ԄDiaz.However,Court P doesnotapply_Melendez_ԄDiazandinsteadassumesthedocumentsand Z testimonyatissuewereadmittederroneously.d݌ d Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d5"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Result:Harmlesserror,judgmentaffirmedd݌ n Ќ X$ X!44X!$   10.Peoplev.Ellis2009Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS7497  "d6"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed72-3      Datefiled:Sept.18,2009d7݌  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d7"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,SecondAppellateDistrict,DivisionOned݌  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d8"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Unpublishedd݌   Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d9"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed}2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:1)Labreportsofnarcoticstesting2)Testimonyby ! anexpertwhoseopinionisbasedonlabreportsofnarcoticstesting " preparedbyanontestifyingexpertd}^݌ #& Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d:"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Holding:CourtconcludesthatGeiercontrolsand_Melendez_ԄDiazdoesnot $0  apply.Labreportswerenottestimonialthereforedefendants %:!  Confrontationclauserightswerenotviolated.d݌ &D"! Ќ X$ X!44X!$   __"d;"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Result:Judgmentaffirmedd݌ 'N#" Ќ X$ X!44X!$    +l&% Ї11.Peoplev.Benjamin2009Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS7412  "d<"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Datefiled:Sept.15,2009d݌  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d="  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,SecondAppellateDistrict,DivisionSixd݌  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d>"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Unpublishedd݌ " Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d?"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ede2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:Testimonybyanexpertwhoseopinionisbasedon  , DNAreportspreparedbyanontestifyingexpertdeF݌  6 Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "d@"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Holding:Courtconcludesthat_Melendez_ԄDiazdoesnotapply.Defendant  @ heredidnotobjecttoadmissionofDNAreportsandhehadthe  J opportunitytocrossexaminethetestifyingexpert.Courtstatesthat T  defendantsConfrontationclauserightswerenotviolated.dv݌ ^  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dA"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Result:Judgmentaffirmedd݌ h  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   12.Peoplev._Pineda_Ԁ2009Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS6960 6 "dB"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Datefiled:Aug.27,2009d݌ J Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dC"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,SecondAppellateDistrict,DivisionTwod݌ T Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dD"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Unpublisheddv݌ ^ Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dE"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed>2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:Testimonybyanexpertwhoseopinionisbasedon h bloodalcoholreportpreparedbyanontestifyingexpertd>݌ r Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dF"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Edw2-3      Holding:Courtdeclinestodecidewhethertestimonybasedonblood | alcoholreportwaserroneousinlightof_Melendez_ԄDiaz.dwX݌  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dG"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Result:Harmlesserror,judgmentaffirmedd݌  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   13.Peoplev._Carruth_Ԁ2009Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS6697  "dH"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed42-3      Datefiled:Aug.19,2009d4݌ ! Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dI"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,FirstAppellateDistrict,DivisionFourd݌ " Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dJ"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:Labreportofnarcoticstestingd݌ #& Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dK"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Holding:Courtconcludesthat_Melendez_ԄDiazapplies.Under_Melendez_ԄDiaz $0  thelabreportwastestimonialandinadmissible.Theexpertdidnottestify %:!  astothenarcoticnatureofthedrugsandthusdefendantsConfrontation &D"! rightswereviolated.d݌ 'N#" Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dL"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed2-3      Result:Harmlesserror,judgmentaffirmedd݌ )X$# Ќ X$ X!44X!$    +l&% 14.Peoplev._Quezada_Ԁ2009Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS6168  "dM"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!EdJ2-3      Datefiled:July30,2009dJ+ ݌  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dN"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed 2-3      CourtofAppealofCalifornia,SecondAppellateDistrict,DivisionTwod  ݌  Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dO"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed 2-3      Doc/testimonyatissue:Firearmanalystsreportd  ݌ ( Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dP"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed 2-3      Holding:Courtconcludesthatthereportatissueistestimonialunder  2 _Melendez_ԄDiaz.Admissionofthereportwaserroneousbutproperly  < admittedtestimonyofasecondexpertreachedthesameconclusion.d ݌  F Ќ X$ X!44X!$   "dQ"  ,E.4 <DL!X!E   X,E(4 4 <DL!4X!Ed}2-3      Result:Harmlesserror,judgment_affirmed_B+ 4 <DL!44X!B__