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 dispute centers on whether the State’s use of a forensic lab analyst’s written report, without the analyst testifying, violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
Background and question before the Court
The legal question is whether the lab analyst’s statements in a forensic report are testimonial and therefore require the analyst’s in‑court testimony under the Confrontation Clause.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Donald Bullcoming)
According to Petitioner (Jeffrey L. Fisher), according to Petitioner (Jeffrey L. Fisher), the Confrontation Clause bars the introduction of the lab analyst’s statements without live testimony.
According to Petitioner (Jeffrey L. Fisher), according to Petitioner (Jeffrey L. Fisher), a surrogate‑witness procedure violates all four components of the right to confrontation.
According to Petitioner (Jeffrey L. Fisher), according to Petitioner (Jeffrey L. Fisher), an amicus brief cited by the petitioner suggests some flexibility for trial judges in accommodating lab analysts’ schedules.
State
According to State, the State acknowledges that using the lab report without the analyst on the stand would make its case considerably weaker.
Respondent (New Mexico)
According to Respondent, new Mexico argues that the lab report is not an ex‑parte examination and therefore does not violate the Confrontation Clause.
According to Mr. King, form 705, the laboratory report form, is routinely used in every circumstance by the lab.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether “in the presence” requires the analyst to testify in the courtroom or could be satisfied by video‑conferencing.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia inquired whether the analyst had been fired, placed on administrative leave, or otherwise, and whether the issue was an interrogation.
Justice Kennedy asked whether New Mexico’s criminal procedure rules treat the lab report as prima facie evidence.
Mr. King explained that the trial at the district‑court level occurred before the Melendez‑Diaz decision.
Mr. King argued that each statement proposed for trial must be analyzed to determine whether it is a substitute for live testimony.
Mr. King described the gas‑chromatograph printout showing the blood‑alcohol level and its transfer to the lab form.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether a hypothetical machine that could match a bullet to a gun with high certainty would be acceptable evidence.
- [1] 03a20521de2a68ee48df-r1-e74f1b44bab33e1c.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 03a20521de2a68ee48df-r1-e74f1b44bab33e1c.pdf, p. 37
- [3] 03a20521de2a68ee48df-r1-e74f1b44bab33e1c.pdf, p. 42
- [4] 03a20521de2a68ee48df-r1-e74f1b44bab33e1c.pdf, p. 59
- [5] 03a20521de2a68ee48df-r1-e74f1b44bab33e1c.pdf, p. 45
- [6] 03a20521de2a68ee48df-r1-e74f1b44bab33e1c.pdf, p. 56
- [7] 03a20521de2a68ee48df-r1-e74f1b44bab33e1c.pdf, p. 56
- [8] 03a20521de2a68ee48df-r1-e74f1b44bab33e1c.pdf, p. 57
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.
- 03a20521de2a68ee48df-r1-e74f1b44bab33e1c.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.