This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Court is considering whether a business‑records exception to the Confrontation Clause applies to forensic lab reports.
Background and question before the Court
The central question before the Court is whether the Confrontation Clause permits admission of forensic laboratory reports under a business‑records exception.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Luis E. Melendez‑Diaz)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Respondent (Massachusetts)
According to Ms. Coakley, the respondent contends that requiring live testimony would create an undue burden with little benefit to the defendant.
According to MS. Schertler (Government), according to MS. Schertler (Government), the government argues that the defense can still challenge the authenticity and testing procedures of the reports even if they are admitted without live testimony.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the case for argument.
Justice Kennedy asked whether there is a business‑records exception for forensic lab reports.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia inquired about the historical basis of the Confrontation Clause and whether a business‑records exception existed historically.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy questioned whether the involvement of a machine versus an expert affects the rule for admissibility.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy expressed concern about making a rule based solely on machine involvement.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens noted that the issue is not limited to drug cases but includes murder and other scientific evidence cases.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer highlighted the hearsay aspect of the reports.
Justice Souter asked why the Court does not require the analyst who performed the test to appear for confrontation.
- [1] 68a0de3d46d0ef505dc9-r1-50ad870ec72f2d84.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 68a0de3d46d0ef505dc9-r1-50ad870ec72f2d84.pdf, p. 10
- [3] 68a0de3d46d0ef505dc9-r1-50ad870ec72f2d84.pdf, p. 23
- [4] 68a0de3d46d0ef505dc9-r1-50ad870ec72f2d84.pdf, p. 38
- [5] 68a0de3d46d0ef505dc9-r1-50ad870ec72f2d84.pdf, p. 55
- [6] 68a0de3d46d0ef505dc9-r1-50ad870ec72f2d84.pdf, p. 56
- [7] 68a0de3d46d0ef505dc9-r1-50ad870ec72f2d84.pdf, p. 59
- [8] 68a0de3d46d0ef505dc9-r1-50ad870ec72f2d84.pdf, p. 61
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 68a0de3d46d0ef505dc9-r1-50ad870ec72f2d84.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.