The United States Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2011 in Bullcoming v. New Mexico that a Defendant has the right to confront the lab technicians who perform blood analysis. In this case Mr. Bullcoming was arrested for DUI and gave a blood sample to the police. The police had the blood sample sent to their crime lab and determined that the Defendant was over the allowable blood alcohol limit for DUI. Mr. Bullcoming was about to have a trial on his case when the prosecution announced that they would not be calling the lab technician who performed the analysis at trial. The prosecution would be calling another lab technician who was familiar with the lab's testing procedures. The judge allowed the non testing lab technician to testify and Mr. Bullcoming was ultimately found guilty of DUI.
The United States Supreme Court reversed Mr. Bullcoming's conviction stating that the Defendant has the absolute Constitutional right to confront the person who performed the testing on the Defendant's blood. This right is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. The wording in the Sixth Amendment stating "in all criminal prosecutions...the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him." is commonly referred to as the "Confrontation Clause".
Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling a certified document or lab result from a reliable laboratory could be admitted into evidence without the lab technician testifying as a "business report" which would not engage Sixth Amendment protections.
