williams illinois argued december decided june petitioner bench trial rape sandra lambatos forensic specialist illinois state police lab testified matched dna profile produced outside laboratory cellmark profile state lab produced using sample petitioner blood testified cellmark accredited laboratory business records showed vaginal swabs taken victim sent cellmark returned offered statement purpose identifying sample used cellmark profile establishing cellmark handled tested sample vouch accuracy cellmark profile defense moved exclude confrontation clause grounds lambatos testimony insofar implicated events cellmark prosecution said petitioner confrontation rights satisfied opportunity expert testified match prosecutor argued illinois rule evidence permitted expert disclose facts expert opinion based even expert competent testify underlying facts deficiency went weight evidence admissibility trial admitted evidence found petitioner guilty illinois appeals state affirmed concluding lambatos testimony violate petitioner confrontation rights cellmark report offered evidence prove truth matter asserted held judgment affirmed affirmed justice alito joined chief justice justice kennedy justice breyer concluded form expert testimony given case violate confrontation clause pp crawford washington took view confrontation clause bar admission statements fell within firmly rooted exception hearsay rule crawford held statements admitted declarant unavailable defendant prior opportunity massachusetts bullcoming new mexico two many cases arisen crawford ruled scientific reports used substantive evidence defendant unless analyst prepared certified report subject confrontation case report issue contain ed testimonial certification made order prove fact criminal trial contrast question constitutionality allowing expert witness discuss others testimonial statements statements admitted evidence pp expert witness may voice opinion based facts concerning events issue even expert lacks knowledge facts long tradition american courts permits expert testify form hypothetical question expert assumes truth factual predicates offers testimony based assumptions see forsyth doolittle modern evidence rules dispense need hypothetical questions permit expert base opinion facts made known expert hearing though reliance constitute admissible evidence underlying information rule evid fed rule evid illinois federal rules bar expert disclosing inadmissible evidence jury trials bench trials important crawford departing prior confrontation clause precedent respects reaffirmed proposition clause bar use testimonial statements purposes establishing truth matter asserted pp confrontation clause purposes references cellmark trial record either hearsay offered truth matter asserted pp petitioner confrontation right violated lambatos answered yes question whether match dna profile found semen vaginal swabs one identified petitioner illinois law putatively offending phrase admissible purpose proving truth matter asserted matching dna profile found semen vaginal swabs rather fact mere premise prosecutor question lambatos simply assumed true giving answer bench trial assumes trial judge understood testimony admissible prove truth matter asserted also unlikely judge took testimony providing evidence record support understanding trial judge likely confused admissible evidence left little room argument cellmark sample came source swabs since profile matched man identified lineup trial attacker pp substance cellmark report need introduced order show cellmark profile based semen swabs procedures reliable issue whether petitioner confrontation right violated whether state offered sufficient foundational evidence support admission lambatos opinion proof cellmark profile accurate lambatos testimony irrelevant confrontation clause bars admission irrelevant evidence admission testimonial statements declarants subject trial record lack admissible evidence respect source sample tested cellmark reliability profile state offered conventional evidence match cellmark profile petitioner telling confirmation cellmark profile deduced semen swabs match also provided strong circumstantial evidence reliability cellmark work pp conclusion consistent bullcoming forensic reports introduced purpose proving truth asserted contrast cellmark report considered limited purpose seeing whether matched something else relevance match established independent circumstantial evidence showing report based sample crime scene least four safeguards prevent abuses situations first trial courts screen experts act conduits hearsay strictly enforcing requirement experts display genuine scientific technical specialized knowledge help trier fact understand evidence determine fact issue fed rule evid second experts generally precluded disclosing inadmissible evidence jury third evidence disclosed trial judge may instruct jury statements accepted truth expert opinion good independent evidence establishing underlying premises fourth prosecution muster independent admissible evidence prove foundational facts expert testimony given weight trier fact pp even cellmark report introduced truth confrontation clause violation clause refers testimony witnesses accused prohibiting practices tantamount abuses gave rise confrontation right namely statements primary purpose accusing targeted individual engaging criminal conduct formalized statements affidavits depositions prior testimony confessions characteristics present every case confrontation clause violation found except hammon indiana even hammon particular statement elicited police interrogation primary purpose accusing targeted individual person makes statement resolve ongoing emergency like trial witness declarant purpose bring end ongoing threat michigan bryant statement admissibility concern rules evidence confrontation forensic reports bullcoming ran afoul confrontation clause equivalent affidavits made purpose proving particular criminal defendant guilt cellmark report primary purpose catch dangerous rapist still large obtain evidence use petitioner neither custody suspicion time anyone cellmark possibly know profile inculpate petitioner thus prospect fabrication incentive produce anything scientifically sound reliable profile bryant supra lab technicians producing dna profile generally way knowing whether turn incriminating exonerating numerous technicians working profile likely technician sole purpose perform task accordance accepted procedures knowledge defects dna profile may detected profile provides safeguard pp justice thomas concluded disclosure cellmark statements lambatos expert testimony violate confrontation clause solely cellmark statements lacked requisite formality solemnity considered see michigan bryant thomas concurring judgment pp plausible reason introduction cellmark statements establish truth pp illinois rule evidence permits expert base opinion facts lacks personal knowledge disclose facts trier fact illinois law facts admitted truth explain basis expert opinion see people pasch state evidence rules trump defendant constitutional right confrontation ensures statement introduced legitimate nonhearsay purpose relying rationale dismiss confrontation clause application see tennessee street statements introduced explain basis expert opinion introduced plausible nonhearsay purpose use basis testimony evaluating expert opinion factfinder must consider truth basis testimony commonsense conclusion undermined historical practice exempting expert basis testimony rigors confrontation clause federal rules evidence adopted expert render opinion based facts expert personally perceived learned trial universe facts expanded include facts expert learned means perception disclosure facts raises confrontation clause concerns pp concerns fully applicable concluding petitioner dna profile matched profile derived swabs lambatos relied cellmark statements profile fact derived swabs rather source thus validity lambatos opinion ultimately turned truth cellmark statements pp statements however testimonial purposes confrontation clause applies accused words testimony crawford washington turn solemn declaration affirmation made purpose establishing proving fact ibid light text confrontation clause regulates use statements bearing indicia solemnity davis washington opinion thomas test comports history solemnity marked practices confrontation clause designed eliminate namely ex parte examination witnesses english bail committal statutes see accordingly clause reaches formalized testimonial materials depositions affidavits prior testimony statements resulting formalized dialogue custodial interrogation bryant supra applying principles cellmark report statement witnes confrontation clause lacks solemnity affidavit deposition neither sworn certified declaration fact although produced request law enforcement product formalized dialogue resembling custodial interrogation bullcoming new mexico distinguished pp alito announced judgment delivered opinion roberts kennedy breyer joined breyer filed concurring opinion thomas filed opinion concurring judgment kagan filed dissenting opinion scalia ginsburg sotomayor joined opinion alito notice opinion subject formal revision publication preliminary print reports readers requested notify reporter decisions washington typographical formal errors order corrections may made preliminary print goes press sandy williams petitioner illinois writ certiorari illinois june justice alito announced judgment delivered opinion chief justice justice kennedy justice breyer join case decide whether crawford washington precludes expert witness testifying manner long allowed law evidence specifically crawford bar expert expressing opinion based facts case made known expert expert competent testify also decide whether crawford substantially impedes ability prosecutors introduce dna evidence thus may effectively relegate prosecution cases reliance older less reliable forms proof petitioner bench trial rape prosecution called expert testified dna profile produced outside laboratory cellmark matched profile produced state police lab using sample petitioner blood direct examination expert testified cellmark accredited laboratory cellmark provided police dna profile expert also explained notations documents admitted business records stating according records vaginal swabs taken victim sent received back cellmark expert made statement offered purpose identifying sample biological material used deriving profile purpose establishing cellmark handled tested sample expert vouch accuracy profile cellmark produced nevertheless petitioner contends expert testimony violated confrontation clause interpreted crawford petitioner main argument expert went astray referred dna profile provided cellmark produced semen found victim vaginal swabs illinois appellate illinois found statement admitted truth matter asserted settled confrontation clause bar admission statements see citing tennessee street years law evidence permitted sort testimony given expert case settled evidence law expert may express opinion based facts expert assumes know true party calls expert introduce evidence establishing facts assumed expert practice expert based opinion assumed facts testify form answer hypothetical question modern practice demand formality appropriate cases permits expert explain facts opinion based without testifying truth facts see fed rule evid precisely occurred case lightly swee away accepted rule governing admission scientific evidence massachusetts kennedy dissenting conclude form expert testimony violate confrontation clause provision application statements offered prove truth matter asserted expert testifies prosecution criminal case defendant opportunity expert statements offered truth statements related expert solely purpose explaining assumptions opinion rests offered truth thus fall outside scope confrontation clause applying rule present case conclude expert testimony violate sixth amendment second independent basis decision also conclude even report produced cellmark admitted evidence confrontation clause violation cellmark report different sort extrajudicial statements affidavits depositions prior testimony confessions confrontation clause originally understood reach report produced suspect identified report sought purpose obtaining evidence used petitioner even suspicion time purpose finding rapist loose profile cellmark provided inherently inculpatory contrary dna profile evidence tends exculpate one billion people world today use dna evidence exonerate persons wrongfully accused convicted well known dna profiles introduced without calling technicians participated preparation profile economic pressures encourage prosecutors forgo dna testing rely instead older forms evidence eyewitness identification less reliable see perry new hampshire confrontation clause mandate undesirable development conclusion prejudice defendant really wishes probe reliability dna testing done particular case participated testing may always subpoenaed defense questioned trial february chicago illinois young woman abducted walking home work perpetrator forced car raped robbed money personal items pushed street ran home reported attack mother called police ambulance took hospital doctors treated wounds took blood sample vaginal swabs kit chicago police detective collected kit labeled inventory number sent seal illinois state police isp lab isp lab forensic scientist received sealed kit conducted chemical test confirmed presence semen vaginal swabs resealed kit placed secure evidence freezer period question isp lab often sent biological samples cellmark diagnostics laboratory germantown maryland dna testing evidence isp lab sent vaginal swabs cellmark testing cellmark sent back report containing male dna profile produced semen taken swabs time petitioner suspicion rape sandra lambatos forensic specialist isp lab conducted computer search see cellmark profile matched entries state dna database computer showed match profile produced lab sample petitioner blood taken arrested unrelated charges august april police conducted lineup identified petitioner assailant petitioner indicted aggravated criminal sexual assault aggravated kidnaping aggravated robbery lieu jury trial petitioner chose tried state judge petitioner bench trial began april open identified petitioner attacker state also offered three expert forensic witnesses link petitioner crime dna first brian hapack isp forensic scientist testified confirmed presence semen vaginal swabs taken performing acid phosphatase test performing test testified resealed evidence left secure freezer isp lab second karen abbinanti state forensic analyst testified used polymerase chain reaction pcr short tandem repeat str techniques develop dna profile blood sample drawn petitioner arrested august also stated entered petitioner dna profile state forensic database third state offered sandra lambatos expert witness forensic biology forensic dna analysis direct examination lambatos testified general process using pcr str techniques generate dna profiles forensic samples blood semen described dna profiles matched individual based individual unique genetic code making comparison two dna profiles lambatos stated commonly accepted practice within scientific community one dna expert rely records another dna expert app lambatos also testified cellmark accredited crime lab experience isp lab routinely sent evidence samples via federal express cellmark dna testing order expedite testing process reduce lab backlog keep track evidence samples preserve chain custody lambatos stated analysts relied sealed shipping containers labeled shipping manifests added experts field regularly relied protocols lambatos shown shipping manifests admitted evidence business records explained indicated namely isp lab sent vaginal swabs cellmark cellmark sent back along deduced male dna profile prosecutor asked lambatos whether computer match male dna profile found semen vaginal swabs male dna profile identified petitioner blood sample defense attorney objected question lack foundation arguing prosecution offered evidence regard testing done generate dna profile another lab testified witness ibid prosecutor responded getting another lab rather said simply asking lambatos testing based dna information received cellmark ibid trial judge agreed noting says testing relied test another lab testifying see going say ibid prosecutor proceeded asking lambatos compare semen identified brian hapack vaginal swabs male dna profile identified karen abbinanti blood petitioner ibid lambatos answered yes ibid defense counsel lodged objection form question trial judge overruled ibid lambatos testified based comparison two dna profiles concluded petitioner excluded possible source semen identified vaginal swabs probability profile appearing general population quadrillion black quadrillion white quadrillion hispanic unrelated individuals asked whether call match petitioner lambatos answered yes defense counsel objection cellmark report neither admitted evidence shown factfinder lambatos quote read report identify source opinions expressed lambatos confirmed conduct observe testing vaginal swabs testimony relied dna profile produced cellmark stated trusted cellmark reliable work accredited lab admitted seen calibrations work cellmark done deducing male dna profile vaginal swabs asked whether dna sample might degraded cellmark analyzed lambatos answered degradation technically possible strongly doubted occurred case gave two reasons first isp lab likely noticed degradation sending evidence cellmark second important lambatos also noted data making dna profile exhibit certain telltale signs deduced degraded sample visual representation dna sequence exhibit specific patterns degradation see evidence looking profile cellmark produced lambatos finished testifying defense moved exclude testimony regards testing done cellmark based confrontation clause defense counsel argued evidence regards work done cellmark justify testimony coming case regard analysis ibid thus defense counsel objected sought exclusion lambatos testimony insofar implicated events cellmark lab defense counsel object move exclusion portion lambatos testimony including statements regarding contents shipment sent received back cellmark see see also app argument based shipping manifests waived prosecution responded petitioner confrontation clause rights satisfied opportunity expert testified match dna profiles produced cellmark abbinanti app invoking illinois rule evidence prosecutor argued expert allowed disclose facts expert opinion based even expert competent testify underlying facts argued deficiency foundation expert opinion oes go admissibility testimony instead goes weight testimony app trial judge agreed prosecution stated issue weight give test exclude accordingly judge stated exclude lambatos testimony based independent testing data received cellmark alteration original trial found petitioner guilty charges state appeals affirmed relevant part concluding lambatos testimony violate petitioner confrontation rights cellmark report offered evidence prove truth matter asserted see app cellmark report offered truth matter asserted rather offered provide basis lambatos opinion illinois also affirmed state law noted cellmark report used substantive evidence lambatos referenced report direct examination limited purpose explaining basis expert opinion purpose showing truth matter asserted report thus report used establish truth show underlying facts data lambatos used rendering expert opinion granted certiorari ii confrontation clause sixth amendment provides criminal prosecutions accused shall enjoy right confronted witnesses crawford took view confrontation clause bar admission statement fell within firmly rooted exception hearsay rule see ohio roberts crawford adopted fundamentally new interpretation confrontation right holding estimonial statements witnesses absent trial admitted declarant unavailable defendant prior opportunity crawford resulted steady stream new cases see bullcoming new mexico michigan bryant giles california indiana edwards davis washington two decisions involved scientific reports defendant arrested charged distributing trafficking cocaine trial prosecution introduced bags white powdery substance found defendant possession trial also admitted evidence three certificates analysis state forensic laboratory stating bags examined following results substance found contain cocaine internal quotation marks omitted held admission certificates executed oath notary violated sixth amendment created sole purpose providing evidence defendant plainly affidavits thomas concurring emphasized introduction report prove nature substance found defendant possession tantamount live testimony critical fact certificates precisely witness direct examination internal quotation marks omitted doubt certificates used prove truth matter asserted state law sole purpose affidavits provide prima facie evidence composition quality net weight analyzed substance ibid internal quotation marks omitted emphasis deleted facts said clear certificates testimonial statements introduced unless authors subjected quoting crawford supra bullcoming held another scientific report used substantive evidence defendant unless analyst prepared certified report subject confrontation defendant case convicted driving intoxicated trial admitted evidence forensic report certifying sample defendant blood alcohol concentration grams per hundred milliliters well legal limit instead calling analyst signed certified forensic report prosecution called another analyst performed observed actual analysis familiar general testing procedures laboratory declined accept surrogate testimony despite fact testifying analyst knowledgeable representative laboratory explain lab processes details report kennedy dissenting slip stated simply accused right confronted analyst made certification slip forensic report introduce bullcoming contain ed testimonial certification made order prove fact criminal trial slip report signed nontestifying analyst authored stating certify followed procedures set reverse report statements block correct concentration alcohol sample based grams alcohol one hundred milliliters blood app bullcoming critically report introduced trial substantive purpose proving truth matter asserted author namely defendant level central fact question defendant trial dispositive guilt concurrence justice sotomayor highlighted importance fact forensic report admitted evidence purpose proving truth matter asserted emphasized case expert witness asked independent opinion underlying testimonial reports admitted evidence slip opinion concurring part citing fed rule evid face different question observed asked determine constitutionality allowing expert witness discuss others testimonial statements testimonial statements admitted evidence slip confront question long accepted expert witness may voice opinion based facts concerning events issue particular case even expert lacks knowledge facts common law courts developed two ways deal situation expert rely facts already established record always possible proceed manner record evidence often disputed courts developed alternative practice allowing expert testify form hypothetical question approach expert asked assume truth certain factual predicates asked offer opinion based assumptions see broun mccormick evidence ed wigmore evidence ed witness skilled enough opinion may adequately obtained upon hypothetical data alone immaterial whether ever seen person place thing question citation omitted truth premises established independent evidence factfinder regard expert testimony credible premises based early example approach comes english case beckwith sydebotham camp eng party sought prove seaworthiness ship earl wycombe calling witnesses several eminent surveyors ships never seen wycombe ibid opposing party objected testimony relied facts known true judge disagreed experts peculiarly acquainted matter skill science judge said jury might assisted hypothetical opinion based certain assumed facts eng judge acknowledged danger jury unduly prejudiced wrongly assuming truth hypothetical facts judge noted experts asked opinion ship seaworthiness different hypothetical facts assumed party called experts independently prove truth premises posited experts opinion might go much still admissible evidence ibid long tradition use hypothetical questions american courts example indicated approval following jury instruction questions must understand evidence mere statements witnesses upon hypothesis assumption questions witnesses asked give opinion must readily see value answers questions depends largely wholly upon fact whether statements made questions sustained proof statements questions supported proof answers questions entitled weight based upon false assumptions statements facts forsyth doolittle internal quotation marks omitted modern rules evidence continue permit experts express opinions based facts lack personal knowledge rules dispense need hypothetical questions illinois federal rules evidence expert may base opinion facts made known expert hearing reliance constitute admissible evidence underlying information rule evid fed rule evid accordingly jury trials illinois federal law generally bar expert disclosing inadmissible bench trials however illinois federal rules place restriction revelation information factfinder judge sits trier fact presumed judge understand limited reason disclosure underlying inadmissible information rely information improper purpose noted bench trials judges routinely hear inadmissible evidence presumed ignore making decisions harris rivera per curiam presumption judge adhered basic rules procedure judge acting factfinder emphasis added see also gentile state bar rehnquist dissenting feature illinois federal law important crawford departing prior confrontation clause precedent respects took pains reaffirm proposition confrontation clause bar use testimonial statements purposes establishing truth matter asserted citing tennessee street street defendant claimed police coerced adopting confession alleged accomplice prosecution sought rebut claim showing defendant confession differed significantly accomplice although accomplice confession clearly testimonial statement held jurors hear long instructed consider confession truth distinctive limited purpose comparing defendant confession see whether two identical iii order assess petitioner confrontation clause argument helpful inventory exactly lambatos said stand cellmark testified truth following matters cellmark accredited lab app isp occasionally sent forensic samples cellmark dna testing ibid according shipping manifests admitted evidence isp lab sent vaginal swabs taken victim cellmark later received swabs back cellmark finally cellmark dna profile matched profile produced isp lab sample petitioner blood lambatos personal knowledge matters therefore none testimony infringed petitioner confrontation right lambatos testify truth matter concerning cellmark made reference cellmark report admitted evidence seen trier fact testify anything done cellmark lab vouch quality cellmark work principal argument advanced show confrontation clause violation concerns phrase lambatos used referred dna profile isp lab received cellmark argument developed fully dissenting opinion therefore refer dissent discussion issue view dissent following critical portion lambatos testimony particular words dissent finds objectionable italicized computer match generated male dna profile found semen vaginal swabs male dna profile identified originated sandy williams yes post opinion kagan quoting app emphasis added according dissent italicized phrase violated petitioner confrontation right lambatos lacked personal knowledge profile produced cellmark based vaginal swabs taken victim dissent acknowledges nothing wrong lambatos testifying two dna profiles one shown cellmark report one derived williams blood matched straightforward application lambatos expertise post thus lambatos testimony slightly modified follows dissent see problem computer match generated male dna profile produced cellmark found semen vaginal swabs male dna profile identified originated sandy williams yes defect argument illinois law like federal law clear putatively offending phrase lambatos testimony admissible purpose proving truth matter asserted matching dna profile found semen vaginal swabs rather fact mere premise prosecutor question lambatos simply assumed premise true gave answer indicating match two dna profiles reason think trier fact took lambatos answer substantive evidence establish dna profiles came dissent argument force petitioner elected jury trial event danger jury taking lambatos testimony proof cellmark profile derived sample obtained victim vaginal swabs absent evaluation risk juror confusion careful jury instructions testimony gone jury case however involves bench trial must assume trial judge understood portion lambatos testimony dissent objects admissible prove truth matter dissent hand reaches truly remarkable conclusion wording lambatos testimony confused trial judge wording argument goes judge might found prosecution failed introduce sufficient admissible evidence show cellmark profile derived sample taken victim judge might disregarded dna evidence argument reflects profound lack respect acumen trial begin dissent argument finds support trial record defense counsel objected lambatos testimony prosecutor made clear asking lambatos testing based dna information received cellmark app recognizing lambatos testimony carry weight underlying premises established judge noted issue weight give test performed lambatos exclude echoes old statement beckwith expert opinion based disputed premises might go much still admissible evidence eng illinois appellate illinois viewed record way see ground second extraordinarily unlikely trial judge confused way dissent posits lambatos competent testify chain custody sample taken victim point trial judge attorney immediately understand lambatos absolutely nothing collection sample victim subsequent handling preservation police illinois shipment receipt cellmark trial judge take lambatos testimony furnishing missing link state evidence regarding identity sample cellmark tested see post opinion kagan third admissible evidence left little room argument sample tested cellmark came source victim vaginal simply plausible explanation cellmark produced dna profile matched williams cellmark tested sample one taken victim items might contained williams dna sent cellmark otherwise cellmark possession chance see district attorney office third judicial dist osborne alito concurring absolutely nothing suggest cellmark items thus fact cellmark profile matched williams man victim identified lineup trial attacker striking confirmation sample cellmark tested sample taken victim vaginal swabs reasons fanciful suggest trial judge took lambatos testimony providing critical evidence phrase lambatos used referring cellmark profile specific passage trial record identified violating confrontation clause nevertheless suggested state somehow introduced substance cellmark report evidence post kagan dissenting main impetus argument appears erroneous view unless substance report sneaked insufficient evidence record two critical points first cellmark profile based semen victim vaginal swabs second cellmark procedures reliable argument legally irrelevant present purposes factually incorrect legal relevance question us whether petitioner sixth amendment confrontation right violated whether state offered sufficient foundational evidence support admission lambatos opinion dna match order prove underlying facts prosecution relied circumstantial evidence illinois courts found evidence sufficient satisfy requirements regarding proof foundational facts see app review interpretation application illinois law thus even record contain evidence rationally support finding cellmark produced scientifically reliable dna profile based vaginal swab establish confrontation clause violation proof cellmark produced accurate profile based sample lambatos testimony regarding match irrelevant confrontation clause interpreted crawford bar admission irrelevant evidence testimonial statements declarants subject correct however trial record lacks admissible evidence respect source sample cellmark tested reliability cellmark profile source sample state offered conventional evidence namely testimony physician obtained vaginal swabs testimony police employees handled kept custody evidence sent cellmark shipping manifests provided evidence swabs sent cellmark returned isp lab addition already discussed match cellmark profile petitioner profile telling confirmation cellmark profile deduced semen vaginal swabs match also provided strong circumstantial evidence regarding reliability cellmark work assuming reasons discussed cellmark profile based semen vaginal swabs shoddy dishonest work cellmark resulted production dna profile happened match petitioner semen found vaginal swabs petitioner thus entirely different dna profile sloppy work cellmark lab transformed entirely different profile one matched petitioner without access sample petitioner dna recall petitioner even suspicion time dishonest lab technician substituted petitioner dna profile circumstances case surely permissible trier fact infer odds exceedingly low analysis reveals much dissent argument rests clear error dissent argues lambatos testimony true predicate facts asserted cellmark report true therefore lambatos reference report must used purpose proving truth facts see post truth lambatos testimony properly understood dependent truth predicate facts lambatos testified two dna profiles matched correctness expert opinion defense able test way dependent origin samples profiles derived course lambatos opinion lacked probative value prosecution introduced evidence establish provenance profiles nothing truth testimony dissent similarly mistaken contention cellmark report offered truth evidence offered post see also post thomas concurring judgment tatements introduced explain basis expert opinion introduced plausible nonhearsay purpose view directly contrary current version rule federal rules evidence approved sent congress rule basis evidence admissible truth may disclosed even jury trial appropriate circumstances purpose allowing disclosure may assis jury evaluate expert opinion advisory committee notes fed rule evid rule approach controversial based idea disclosure basis evidence help factfinder understand expert thought process determine weight give expert opinion example factfinder suspect expert relied factual premises support record expert drew unwarranted inference premises expert relied probativeness credibility expert opinion seriously undermined purpose disclosing facts expert relied allay fears show expert reasoning illogical weight expert opinion depend factual premises unsupported evidence record prove truth underlying facts perhaps seriously dispute legitimate nonhearsay purpose illuminating expert thought process dissent resorts argument really matter whether lambatos statement regarding source cellmark report admitted truth dissent concedes trial judge might ignored lambatos statement cellmark report nonetheless maintains admission statement violated confrontation clause even judge ultimately put aside post bench trial necessary judge stop make formal statement record regarding limited reason testimony admitted judge consider testimony truth effect precisely thus trial judge case rely statement question truth simply way around proviso crawford confrontation clause applies statements use establis truth matter asserted citing street reasons conclude petitioner sixth amendment confrontation right violated conclusion entirely consistent bullcoming cases forensic reports introduced evidence question done purpose proving truth asserted bullcoming defendant blood alcohol level exceeded legal limit diaz substance question contained cocaine nothing comparable happened case cellmark report introduced evidence expert witness referred report prove truth matter asserted report report contained accurate profile perpetrator dna establish report contained dna profile matched dna profile deduced petitioner blood thus street report considered truth distinctive limited purpose seeing whether matched something else relevance match established independent circumstantial evidence showing cellmark report based forensic sample taken scene crime conclusion open door kind abuses suggested petitioner amici dissent see post brief richard friedman amicus curiae hypothetical situations posited expert expresses opinion based factual premises supported admissible evidence may also reveal statements expert least four safeguards prevent abuses first trial courts screen experts act mere conduits hearsay strictly enforcing requirement experts display genuine scientific technical specialized knowledge help trier fact understand evidence determine fact issue fed rule evid second experts generally precluded disclosing inadmissible evidence jury see fed rule evid people pasch third evidence disclosed trial judges may circumstances must instruct jury statements accepted truth expert opinion good independent evidence establishes underlying premises see fed rules evid people scott fourth prosecution muster independent admissible evidence prove foundational facts essential relevance expert testimony expert testimony given weight trier iv even cellmark report introduced truth nevertheless conclude confrontation clause violation confrontation clause refers testimony witnesses accused noted evidence scholar james henry wigmore justice harlan interpreted clause strictly literal sense referring solely persons testify adopted narrow view said difficulty view purest form tension much apparent history surrounding evolution right confrontation common law white illinois thomas concurring principal evil confrontation clause directed concluded crawford mode criminal procedure particularly use ex parte examinations evidence accused england pretrial examinations suspects witnesses government officials sometimes read lieu live testimony bryant slip quoting crawford supra thus interpreted confrontation clause prohibiting practices tantamount abuses gave rise recognition confrontation right expansion strain constitutional text abuses identified prompting adoption confrontation clause shared following two characteristics involved statements primary purpose accusing targeted individual engaging criminal conduct involved formalized statements affidavits depositions prior testimony confessions one confrontation clause violation found characteristics present see bullcoming slip certified lab report purpose showing defendant level exceeded legal limit certified lab report purpose showing substance connected defendant contained cocaine crawford supra custodial statement made miranda warnings shifted blame declarant accused one exception occurred hammon indiana decided together davis washington hammon every case found violation confrontation right statement issue primary purpose accusing targeted individual hammon one case informal statement held violate confrontation clause considered statements elicited course police interrogation held statement fall within ambit clause made circumstances objectively indicating primary purpose interrogation enable police assistance meet ongoing emergency bryant another case explained person makes statement resolve ongoing emergency acting like trial witness declarant purpose provide solemn declaration use trial bring end ongoing threat see slip noted prospect fabrication presumably significantly diminished statement made circumstances slip reliability salient characteristic statement falls outside reach confrontation clause slip emphasized statement made primary purpose creating substitute trial testimony admissibility concern state federal rules evidence confrontation clause slip bullcoming held particular forensic reports issue qualified testimonial statements hold forensic reports fall category introduction reports cases ran afoul confrontation clause equivalent affidavits made purpose proving guilt particular criminal defendant trial nothing resembling ongoing emergency suspects cases already captured tests question relatively simple generally performed single analyst addition technicians prepared reports must realized contents reported elevated level presence illegal drug incriminating cellmark report different plainly prepared primary purpose accusing targeted individual identifying primary purpose statement apply objective test bryant slip look primary purpose reasonable person ascribed statement taking account surrounding circumstances ibid primary purpose cellmark report viewed objectively accuse petitioner create evidence use trial isp lab sent sample cellmark primary purpose catch dangerous rapist still large obtain evidence use petitioner neither custody suspicion time similarly one cellmark possibly known profile produced turn inculpate petitioner matter anyone else whose dna profile law enforcement database circumstances prospect fabrication incentive produce anything scientifically sound reliable profile slip situation cellmark technicians found means unique lab technicians asked work production dna profile often idea consequences work cases dna profile may provide powerful incriminating evidence person identified either profile completed others primary effect profile exonerate suspect charged investigation technicians prepare dna profile generally way knowing whether turn incriminating exonerating also significant many labs numerous technicians work dna profile see brief new york county district attorney office et al amici curiae new york lab uses least technicians case people johnson app pproximately cellmark analysts involved laboratory work case work lab divided way likely sole purpose technician simply perform task accordance accepted procedures finally knowledge defects dna profile may often detected profile provides safeguard case example lambatos testified able tell profile sample used cellmark degraded prior testing noted moreover real chance sample contamination sample switching mislabeling fraud led cellmark produce dna profile falsely matched petitioner post kagan dissenting time testing petitioner yet identified suspect suggestion anyone cellmark sample dna swap malice mistake given complexity dna molecule inconceivable shoddy lab work somehow produce dna profile happened precise genetic makeup petitioner happened picked lineup victim prospect beyond fanciful short use trial dna report prepared modern accredited laboratory bears little resemblance historical practices confrontation clause aimed eliminate bryant supra slip thomas concurring two independent reasons explained conclude confrontation clause violation case accordingly judgment illinois affirmed breyer concurring sandy williams petitioner illinois writ certiorari illinois june justice breyer concurring case raises question believe neither plurality dissent answers adequately confrontation clause apply panoply crime laboratory reports underlying technical statements written otherwise made laboratory technicians context outer limits testimonial statements rule set forth crawford washington believe question difficult important squarely addressed either today earlier opinions believe additional briefing help us find proper generally applicable answer set case reargument absence adhere dissenting views set forth massachusetts bullcoming new mexico also join plurality opinion case another series involving confrontation clause expert testimony trial prosecution expert sandra lambatos received copy report prepared cellmark diagnostics laboratory report reflected fact cellmark technicians received material vaginal swab taken crime victim identified semen material derived profile male dna semen contained lambatos entered profile illinois state police crime laboratory computerized database contained among many dna profiles profile derived crime laboratory williams blood taken earlier time computer using showed two profiles matched lambatos confirmed match later lambatos testified trial prosecutor asked three relevant questions first prosecutor asked whether computer match generated male dna profile derived cellmark found semen vaginal swabs male dna profile found database identified originated sandy williams app since computer shown match lambatos answered affirmatively ibid second prosecutor asked whether lambatos compare dna profile cellmark derived semen identified vaginal swabs victim male dna profile found database derived blood sandy williams ibid lambatos answered affirmatively ibid third prosecutor asked whether lambatos opinion dna profile derived semen identified vaginal swabs victim match sandy williams lambatos answered affirmatively ibid confrontation clause problem lies fact lambatos personal knowledge male dna profile cellmark said derived crime victim vaginal swab sample fact correctly derived sample cellmark expert testified true rather simply relied knowledge fact upon cellmark report defendant williams opportunity individual individuals produced report first conclusion plurality explains finds admission lambatos testimony nonetheless violate confrontation clause clause concerns statements admitted truth ante lambatos testimony introduce cellmark report circumstantial evidence supported truth ante rather used cellmark report indicate underlying factual information upon based independent expert opinion ibid principles evidence experts may rely otherwise inadmissible statements basis forming expert opinion kind experts field normally rely upon see fed rule evid rule evid need prosecution enter statements evidence truth illinois courts held took place ante dissent abandon rule permit lambatos offer expert opinion reliance cellmark report unless prosecution also produces one experts wrote otherwise produced report willing accept dissent characterization present rule artificial see post opinion kagan certain dissent produced workable alternative see bullcoming supra kennedy dissenting slip expressing similar view one abandons traditional rule seem often logical stopping place requiring prosecution call witness one experts worked matter requiring prosecution call laboratory experts experts especially laboratory experts regularly rely technical statements results experts form opinions reality matter introduction laboratory report involves layer upon layer technical statements express implied made one expert relied upon another hence general question confrontation clause apply crime laboratory reports underlying technical statements made laboratory technicians general question easy answer california case described outset dissenting opinion helps illustrate difficulty example cellmark laboratory involved case tested dna sample taken crime scene laboratory analyst relying upon report laboratory prepared initially stated pretrial hearing admissibility laboratory found dna sample matched sample defendant dna hearing reviewing notes laboratory analyst realized written report mistaken fact testing showed dna matched sample victim dna defendant dna point writing report someone perhaps testifying analyst must misread proper original sample labeling upon discovering error analyst corrected testimony example useful simply adapted might show importance importance one doubts also reveal nature general question us laboratory example received dna samples labeled properly laboratory final report mixed labels one many different technicians responsible error like testifying analyst might reviewed underlying notes caught error direct examination matter adapting example slightly assume admissibility initial laboratory report trial directly issue prosecution call testify analyst signed report noting match analyst made match knew nothing either laboratory underlying procedures specific tests run particular case prosecution call potentially involved laboratory technicians testify six twelve technicians involved see appendix infra lists typically relevant laboratory procedures words spoken written technician might well constituted relevant statements offered truth reasonably relied supervisor analyst writing laboratory report indeed petitioner amici argue technicians stage process subject see brief innocence network amicus curiae hereinafter innocence network brief true many hearsay statements fall within hearsay exceptions sometimes significantly help elicit truth see fed rule evid listing hearsay exceptions confrontation clause interpreted crawford recognizes limitation upon pure testimonial statement requirement circumstances defendant adequate prior opportunity extent might testimonial statements requirement embody one modified versions traditional hearsay exceptions well lower courts treatise writers recognized problem come variety solutions new wigmore example lists several nonexclusive approaches testifying experts may rely testing results reports nontestifying experts dna technicians analysts including dominant approach simply determine need testify looking quality nontestifying expert report testifying expert involvement process consequent ability testifying expert use independent judgment interpretive skill permitting substitute expert testify forensic science results first expert unavailable irrespective lack opportunity first expert cf crawford supra permitting substitute expert testify original test documented thorough way permits substitute expert evaluate assess interpret permitting dna analyst introduce dna test results trial without personally perform ed every specific aspect dna test question provided analyst present critical stages test familiar process laboratory protocol involved reviews results proximity test either initials signs final report outlining results permitting introduction crime laboratory dna report without testimony technician testing stages requires technician simply perform largely mechanical ministerial tasks absent reason believe error falsification permitting introduction report without requiring technicians testify showing genuine unavailability see kaye bernstein mnookin new wigmore expert evidence pp ed internal quotation marks omitted supp approaches seem readily compatible crawford others seem easily considered rules committee state courts nonetheless assume kind crawford boundary kind limitation upon scope application though reflect different views might done answering underlying general question discussed soon important trial judges federal state courts apply interpret hearsay rules part daily trial work trial criminal cases makes large portion work laboratory reports frequently constitute portion evidence ordinary criminal trials obviously judges prosecutors defense lawyers know definitive form possible constitution requires try cases accordingly several different opinions filed today embody serious different approaches difficult question yet none fully deals underlying question crawford confrontation clause testimonial statement requirements apply crime reports find general answer bullcoming matter pure logic one might use cases answer narrowed version question presented see post kagan dissenting cases fully consider broader evidentiary problem presented consequently find dissent response done unsatisfactory see post circumstances case reargued request parties amici focus specifically upon broader limits question permit discuss possible implications earlier opinions also necessary modifications statements made opinions earlier cases ii absence reargument adhere dissenting view set forth bullcoming cellmark report considered testimonial barred confrontation clause see also ante setting forth similar conclusion view understands confrontation clause interpreted crawford bar admission estimonial statements made unless declarant defendant prior opportunity emphasis added also understands word testimonial outer limits crawford describing constitutional heartland view leave constitutional leeway maintain traditional expert testimony rules well hearsay exceptions strong reasons crawford basic rationale apply particular create exception presumptively allow introduction dna reports accredited crime laboratories defendant remain free call laboratory technicians witnesses significant reason question laboratory technical competence neutrality presumptive exception disappear thereby requiring prosecution produce relevant technical witnesses exception lie outside crawford constitutional limits consider report us cellmark dna report embodies technical professional data observations judgments employees contributed report findings professional analysts working technical matters certified laboratory employees operated behind veil ignorance likely prevented knowing identity defendant case statements kind fall within hearsay exception constituted important part law evidence decades see fed rule evid records regularly conducted activity wigmore evidence pp regular entries somewhat similar reasons believe statements also presumptively fall outside category testimonial statements confrontation clause makes inadmissible plurality points ante introduction statements kind risk creating principal evil confrontation clause directed crawford evil consists practice using ex parte examinations evidence accused ibid sir walter raleigh case illustrates point state authorities questioned lord cobham key witness raleigh outside presence used testimonial statements raleigh raleigh asked face challenge accuser denied opportunity see confrontation clause prohibits use kind evidence allowing deprive defendant ability witness mattox deprivation prevent defendant confronting witness thereby prevent defendant probing witness perception memory narration sincerity see broun et mccormick evidence ed morgan problems proof system litigation wright graham federal practice procedure pp see also hale history common law england explaining virtues confronting witness blackstone commentaries laws england need considerably diminished statement made accredited laboratory employee operating remove investigation ordinary course professional work one thing hearsay exception reflects alternative features situations help guarantee accuracy accredited laboratory must satisfy professional guidelines seek ensure scientific reliability laboratory results app see brief national district attorneys assn et al amici curiae hereinafter ndaa brief noting standards date back years giannelli regulating crime laboratories impact dna evidence example forensic dna testing laboratories permitted access fbi combined dna index system must adhere standards governing among things organization management laboratory education training experience requirements laboratory personnel laboratory physical facilities security measures control physical evidence validation testing methodologies procedures analyzing samples including reagents controls used testing process equipment calibration maintenance documentation process used test sample handled laboratory technical administrative review every case file proficiency testing laboratory personnel corrective action addresses discrepancies proficiency tests casework analysis internal external audits laboratory environmental health safety outsourcing testing vendor laboratories see brief new york county district attorney office et al amici curiae hereinafter ny county dao brief see also app ny county dao brief standards foolproof always properly applied difficult find instances laboratory procedures abused see innocence network brief app brief public defender service district columbia et al amici curiae cf giannelli abuse scientific evidence criminal cases need independent crime laboratories soc moreover dna testing exonerated defendants previously convicted part upon basis testimony laboratory experts see massachusetts citing garrett neufeld invalid forensic science testimony wrongful convictions rev accreditation prevent admission faulty evidence cases neither cases previously referred forensic experts testified available sklansky hearsay last hurrah rev cited study identify cases hearsay forensic analysts contributed conviction innocent defendants see garrett neufeld supra noting rarely effective see also murphy new forensics criminal justice false certainty second generation scientific evidence cal rev suggesting need greater reliance upon accreditation oversight accredited laboratories sklansky supra similarly role ambiguous laboratory example dissent describes see post apparently report error came light corrected concluded see thompson taroni aitken author response forensic sci event parties received correctly labeled underlying laboratory data see clarke commentary another thing fact laboratory testing takes place behind veil ignorance makes unlikely particular researcher motive behave dishonestly say misrepresent step analysis otherwise misreport testing results cf michigan bryant slip discussing prospect fabrication factor whether confrontation clause requires statements subject crucible laboratory example know whether test results might help incriminate particular defendant ante cf supra bullcoming slip statements issue like many laboratory analysts easily fit within linguistic scope term testimonial statement used term earlier cases plurality notes every case found confrontation clause violation statement issue primary purpose accusing targeted individual ante see davis washington primary purpose establish prove past events potentially relevant later criminal prosecution bryant supra slip primary purpose creating substitute trial testimony declarant essentially adverse witness making accusatory testimonial statement implicating core concerns lord affidavits dna report sought accuse petitioner instead generate objectively profile suspect dna semen left committing crime see ante finally bar admission records issue undermine fortify accuracy factfinding criminal trial precedent bar admission reliable technical information say autopsy reports autopsies like dna report case often conducted yet clear whether particular suspect whether facts found autopsy ultimately prove relevant criminal trial autopsies typically conducted soon death say victim body decomposed repetition autopsy may possible happen medical examiner dies trial state lackey see also people geier cal confrontation clause function statute limitations supra kennedy dissenting quoting comment toward definition testimonial autopsy reports embody qualities testimonial statement cal rev general holding also increase risk convicting innocent new york county district attorney office new york city office chief medical examiner tell us additional cost complexity involved requiring live testimony perhaps dozens ordinary laboratory technicians participate preparation dna profile may well force laboratory reduce amount dna testing conducts force prosecutors forgo forensic dna analysis cases might highly probative absence dna testing defendants might well prosecuted solely basis eyewitness testimony reliability often questioned ny county dao brief citing wade see also ndaa brief holding also impact innocent may wait cleared suspicion exonerated mistaken conviction find plausible cf innocence network brief interpretation clause risks greater prosecution reliance upon less reliable evidence sound cf maryland craig central concern confrontation clause ensure evidence criminal defendant consequently consider reports dna report us presumptively lie outside perimeter clause established precedents holding leaves defendant free call laboratory employee witness employee available moreover defendant provide good reason doubt laboratory competence validity accreditation alternative safeguard reliability longer exist constitution entitle defendant confrontation clause protection similarly defendant demonstrate existence motive falsify alternative safeguard honesty longer exist constitution entitle defendant confrontation clause protection cf wigmore evidence respect business records exception must motive misrepresent thus defendant remain free show absence inadequacy alternative safeguards thereby rebutting making confrontation clause applicable one suggested problem respect cellmark report issue plurality opinion basically consistent views set forth join opinion full appendix appendix outlines way typical modern laboratory conducts dna analysis see ny county dao brief ndaa brief innocence network brief see also dept justice office inspector general fbi dna laboratory review protocol practice vulnerabilities may online http visited june available clerk case file dna analysis takes place three parts three different sets laboratory experts dna derived suspect dna sample dna profile derived dna sample analyst compares two profiles makes conclusion many six technicians may involved deriving profile suspect sample many six technicians may involved deriving profile sample additional expert may required comparative analysis total dozen different laboratory experts expert may make technical statements express implied dna analysis process turn relied upon experts amici dispute many experts confrontation clause requires subject compare innocence network brief ny county dao brief ndaa brief charting process appendix first summarizes laboratory procedures used derive dna profile illustrates potential statements technicians may make explain analysis graphic omitted see printed opinion graphic omitted see printed opinion graphic omitted see printed opinion thomas concurring judgment sandy williams petitioner illinois writ certiorari illinois june justice thomas concurring judgment agree plurality disclosure cellmark statements expert testimony sandra lambatos violate confrontation clause reach conclusion however solely cellmark statements lacked requisite formality solemnity considered purposes confrontation clause see michigan bryant thomas concurring judgment slip explain share dissent view plurality flawed analysis threshold question case whether cellmark statements hearsay explained confrontation clause bar use testimonial statements purposes establishing truth matter asserted see crawford washington citing tennessee street state illinois contends cellmark statements successfully derived male dna profile profile came swabs introduced show basis lambatos opinion truth view however plausible reason introduction cellmark statements establish truth illinois rule evidence federal counterpart permit expert base opinion facts lacks personal knowledge disclose facts trier fact relying rules state contends facts expert opinion relies considered truth explain basis opinion see people pasch allowing expert reveal information purpose alone undoubtedly aid jury assessing value opinion see also advisory committee notes fed rule evid stating expert basis testimony admissible purpose assisting jury evaluating expert opinion accordingly state view disclosure expert basis testimony implicate confrontation clause think rules evidence easily trump defendant confrontation right sure lightly swee away accepted rule federal state evidence law ante internal quotation marks omitted applying confrontation clause rules limited admissibility commonplace evidence law mnookin expert evidence confrontation clause crawford washington often presume courts juries follow limiting instructions see street supra recognized concepts central application confrontation clause ultimately matters federal constitutional law dictated state federal evidentiary rules see barber page defining constitutional standard whether witness unavailable purposes confrontation clause see also ohio roberts recognizing barber explored issue constitutional unavailability emphasis added likewise held limiting instructions may insufficient circumstances protect violations confrontation clause see bruton particular importance made sure statement introduced legitimate nonhearsay purpose relying rationale dismiss application confrontation clause see street emphasis added street defendant testified gave false confession police coerced parroting accomplice confession rebuttal prosecution introduced accomplice confession demonstrate jury ways two confessions differed finding confrontation clause problem held accomplice confession introduced truth impeach defendant version events although noted confession hearsay traditional rules evidence accept nonhearsay label face value instead thoroughly examined use confession efficacy limiting instruction concluding confrontation clause satisfied context unlike confession street statements introduced explain basis expert opinion introduced plausible nonhearsay purpose meaningful distinction disclosing statement factfinder may evaluate expert opinion disclosing statement truth use inadmissible information evaluating expert testimony jury must make preliminary judgment whether information true kaye bernstein mnookin new wigmore treatise evidence expert evidence ed hereinafter kaye jury believes basis evidence true likely also believe expert reliance justified inversely jury doubts accuracy validity basis evidence skeptical expert conclusions contrary plurality suggestion commonsense conclusion undermined longstanding historical practice exempting expert basis testimony rigors confrontation clause prior adoption federal rules evidence expert render opinion based facts expert personally perceived facts expert learned trial either listening testimony witnesses hypothetical question based facts evidence see advisory committee notes fed rule evid wright gold federal practice procedure pp hereinafter wright broun et mccormick evidence ed hereinafter broun kaye situations little danger expert rely testimonial hearsay subject confrontation expert witnesses relied present trial universe facts upon expert rely expanded include facts case expert learned means perception broun kaye expert disclosure facts raises confrontation clause concerns fully applicable case lambatos opined petitioner dna profile matched male profile derived vaginal swabs reaching conclusion lambatos relied cellmark statements profile reported fact derived swabs rather source thus validity lambatos opinion ultimately turned truth cellmark statements plurality assertion cellmark statements merely relayed explain assumptions lambatos opinion rest ed ante overlooks value lambatos testimony depended truth answer say nonhearsay evidence established basis expert opinion lambatos disclosed cellmark statements generated male dna profile swabs evidence showed swabs contained semen swabs shipped received cellmark ante evidence render cellmark statements superfluous course evidence cellmark received swabs later produced dna profile indication cellmark fact generated profile swabs rather source source cf massachusetts citing brief describes cases documented forensic analysts report results tests never performed including dna tests direct evidence effect cellmark statement lambatos relayed factfinder event factfinder ability rely evidence evaluate expert opinion alter conclusion basis testimony admitted truth existence evidence corroborating basis testimony may render confrontation clause violation harmless change purpose testimony thereby place outside reach confrontation thus conclude cellmark statements introduced truth plurality contrary conclusion may seem little consequence view dna testing forms hard science intrinsically reliable see supra forensic evidence uniquely immune risk manipulation today holding however reach beyond scientific evidence ordinary statements example uncommon experts rely interviews third parties forming opinions see people goldstein psychiatrist disclosed statements made defendant acquaintances part basis opinion defendant motivated kill feelings sexual frustration answer say safeguards rules evidence prevent abuse basis testimony ante begin courts may willing conclude expert acting mere condui hearsay ante long simply provides opinion based hearsay see brief respondent collecting cases addition hearsay may kind fact experts field reasonably rely see fed rule evid goldstein supra evidence showed reputable psychiatrists relied upon interviews forming opinions course courts may determine hearsay sort substantially probative prejudicial therefore disclosed rule balancing test substitute constitutional provision already struck balance favor accused see crawford confrontation clause commands evidence reliable reliability assessed particular manner testing crucible ii concluded statements issue introduced truth turn whether testimonial purposes confrontation clause crawford explained text confrontation clause applies accused words testimony quoting webster american dictionary english language turn solemn declaration affirmation made purpose establishing proving fact light text continue think confrontation clause regulates use statements bearing indicia solemnity davis washington thomas concurring judgment part dissenting part test comports history solemnity marked practices confrontation clause designed eliminate namely ex parte examination witnesses english bail committal statutes passed reign queen mary see bryant thomas concurring judgment slip crawford supra accordingly concluded confrontation clause reaches testimonial materials depositions affidavits prior testimony statements resulting dialogue custodial interrogation bryant supra slip see also davis supra applying principles conclude cellmark report statement witnes within meaning confrontation clause cellmark report lacks solemnity affidavit deposition neither sworn certified declaration fact nowhere report attest statements accurately reflect dna testing processes used results obtained see report laboratory examination lodging petitioner report signed two reviewers neither purport performed dna testing certify accuracy see ibid although report produced request law enforcement product sort formalized dialogue resembling custodial interrogation cellmark report distinguishable laboratory reports determined testimonial bullcoming new mexico reports question sworn notary public analysts tested substance cocaine bullcoming report though unsworn included certificate analyst signed forensic analyst tested defendant blood sample slip analyst affirmed seal th sample received intact broken laboratory statements analyst block report correct procedures set reverse th report ibid dissent insists bullcoming report cellmark report equally formal separated minutia fact cellmark report labeled post opinion kagan contrary distinguishes two cellmark report substance certifies nothing see pra distinction constitutionally significant scope confrontation right properly limited extrajudicial statements similar solemnity marian examination practices confrontation clause designed prevent see davis supra opinion thomas certifying truth analyst representations unsworn bullcoming report bore resemblance quoting crawford marian practice magistrates examined witnesses typically oath certif ied results observed functionally identical live testimony precisely witness direct examination cellmark report marked indicia solemnity contrary dissent suggestion acknowledging confrontation clause implicated formalized statements characterized solemnity result prosecutorial conspiracy elude confrontation using informal extrajudicial statements accused previously noted confrontation clause reaches attempts evade formalized process see supra quoting davis moreover prosecution use informal statements comes price dissent recognizes statements less reliable formalized statements post therefore less persuasive factfinder cf post arguing prosecutors unlikely forgo dna evidence favor less reliable eyewitness testimony simply defendant entitled confront dna analyst even assuming dissent accurately predicts upswing use less reliable informal statements result turn confrontation clause upside post confrontation clause require evidence reliable crawford supra reliability specific class testimonial statements formalized statements bearing indicia solemnity assessed see rather apply foregoing principles plurality invokes primary purpose test original formulation test asked whether primary purpose extrajudicial statement establish prove past events potentially relevant later criminal prosecution davis supra agree statement testimonial within meaning confrontation clause declarant must primarily intend establish fact understanding statement may used criminal prosecution see bryant scalia dissenting slip necessary criterion sufficient sweeps ambit confrontation clause statements lack formality solemnity thus disconnected history davis supra opinion concurring judgment part dissenting part bryant supra opinion concurring judgment slip addition primary purpose inquiry divorced solemnity unworkable practice davis supra bryant supra slip statements police often made resolve ongoing emergency establish facts crime potential prosecution primary purpose test gives courts principled way assign primacy one purposes davis supra solemnity requirement true text history confrontation clause goes long way toward resolving practical difficulty statement bears formality solemnity necessary come within scope clause highly unlikely statement primarily made end ongoing emergency shortcomings original primary purpose test pale comparison however plaguing reformulated version plurality suggests today new primary purpose test asks whether statement primary purpose accusing targeted individual engaging criminal conduct ante test lacks grounding constitutional text history logic new test first requires statement made purpose proving guilt particular criminal defendant ante emphasis added formulation statements made suspect identified beyond scope confrontation clause see ante textual justification however limiting confrontation right statements made accused identity became known sure sixth amendment right confrontation attaches criminal prosecutions time accused identified apprehended text confrontation clause constrain time one becomes witnes indeed previously held declarant may become witnes accused prosecution see crawford rejecting view confrontation clause applies testimony historical practice confirms declarant become witnes accused identity known previously noted confrontation right response ex parte examinations witnesses england examinations often occurred accused arrested bound trial examinations occurred accused remained unknown fugitive langbein prosecuting crime renaissance describing examples including deposition victim swindled shillings see also stephen history criminal law england describing sworn examinations witnesses coroners charged investigating suspicious deaths asking local citizens knew culpable either act force internal quotation marks omitted also little logical justification plurality rule plurality characterizes cellmark report statement elicited police made cellmark accuse petitioner create evidence use trial rather resolve ongoing emergency posed dangerous rapist still large ante explained distinction unworkable light mixed purposes often underlie statements police see supra difficulty compounded plurality attempt merge purposes police declarant see ante bryant supra majority opinion slip one purpose must prevail surely evidentiary one whether viewed perspective police cellmark police confirmed presence semen vaginal swabs february placed swabs freezer waited november ship cellmark app cellmark turn send report police april year rape given timeline strains credulity assert police cellmark primarily concerned exigencies ongoing emergency rather producing evidence ordinary course addition requiring statement targe particular accused plurality new primary purpose test also considers whether statement inherently inculpatory ante declarant known statement incriminate accused case plurality asserts technicians prepare dna profile generally way knowing whether turn incriminating exonerating ante thus one cellmark possibly known profile produced turn inculpate petitioner ante textual justification limitation scope confrontation clause held text sixth amendment contemplates two classes witnesses defendant favor emphasized third category witnesses helpful prosecution somehow immune confrontation thus distinction make inherently inculpatory statements make statements merely helpful prosecution foundation text amendment also contrary history marian statutes instructed magistrates transcribe information witnesses material prove felony see stephen supra quoting phil mary ch magistrates centuries also advised practice manuals take ex parte examination witness even evidence weak witness unable inform material thing accused beattie crime courts england internal quotation marks omitted thus neither law practice limited ex parte examinations witnesses made inherently inculpatory statements requirement also makes little sense statement facially inculpatory may turn highly probative defendant guilt considered evidence recognizing point previously rejected view witness subject confrontation testimony inculpatory taken together evidence supra see justification reviving discredited approach plurality offers respondent amici emphasized economic logistical burdens visited upon every analyst reports dna results required testify trial see ante citing brief stating crime labs use technicians testing dna sample burdens largely product primary purpose test reaches statements well beyond historical scope confrontation clause thus sweeps broad range sources modern experts regularly rely proper solution problem carve confrontation clause exception expert testimony rooted legal fiction see ante create new primary purpose test ensures dna evidence treated differently see ibid rather solution adopt reading confrontation clause respects historically limited application narrow class statements bearing indicia solemnity forgoing approach today decision diminishes confrontation clause protection cases experts convey contents solemn formalized statements explain bases opinions cases accused enjoy right confronted witnesses kagan dissenting sandy williams petitioner illinois writ certiorari illinois june justice kagan justice scalia justice ginsburg justice sotomayor join dissenting years ago state california prosecuted man named john kocak rape preliminary hearing state presented testimony analyst cellmark diagnostics laboratory facility used generate dna evidence case analyst extracted dna bloody sweatshirt found crime scene compared two control samples one kocak one victim analyst report identified single match explained direct examination dna found sweatshirt belonged kocak undergoing analyst realized made mortifying error took stand time admit report listed victim control sample coming kocak kocak coming victim dna sweatshirt matched kocak victim see tr super san diego pp little hysterical right think two names switched online http visited june available clerk case file trying kocak state look elsewhere evidence constitution contains mechanism catching errors sixth amendment confrontation clause clause recent cases interpreting require testimony criminal defendant subject command applies full force forensic evidence kind involved kocak case one two decisions issued last three years held prosecutor wants introduce results forensic testing evidence must afford defendant opportunity analyst responsible test forensic evidence reliable properly produced confrontation clause prescribes particular method determining whether happened kocak incident illustrates clause designed work confronted analyst discovered disclosed error made error probably come light prosecutor merely admitted report evidence asked third party present findings hence genius device applied evidence analyst especially likely reveal whether vials switched samples contaminated tests incompetently run results inaccurately recorded confrontation clause precedents case state illinois prosecuted sandy williams rape based part dna profile created cellmark laboratory yet state give williams chance question analyst produced evidence instead prosecution introduced results cellmark testing expert witness idea generated approach less perhaps methods presenting forensic evidence formerly banned deprived williams sixth amendment right confron witnesses today disagrees though settle reason justice alito joined three justices advances two theories expert summary cellmark report offered truth report kind statement triggering confrontation clause protection pages follow call justice alito opinion plurality conventional term except disposition opinion dissent five justices specifically reject every aspect reasoning every paragraph explication see ante thomas concurring judgment share dissent view plurality flawed analysis justice thomas part contends cellmark report nontestimonial different rationale justice joins opinion subscribes test offers creates five votes approve admission cellmark report single good explanation plurality first rationale endorses prosecutorial dodge second relies distinguishing indistinguishable forensic reports justice thomas concurrence though positing altogether different approach suffers end similar flaws choose another path adhere simple rule established decisions good reasons previously given defendants like williams constitutional right confront witnesses respectfully dissent fractured decision modern confrontation clause doctrine began crawford washington quarter century earlier interpreted clause allow admission statement falling within firmly rooted hearsay exception carrying particularized guarantees trustworthiness ohio roberts crawford concluded old approach misguided drawing historical research clause purposes held prosecution may admit testimonial statements witness appear trial unless unavailable testify defendant prior opportunity holding two aspects first confrontation clause applies statements testimonial second clause applies guarantees defendant name suggests opportunity person made statement see years later made clear crawford rule reaches forensic reports massachusetts commonwealth introduced laboratory stating substance seized defendant cocaine held certificates fell within clause class testimonial clear evidentiary purpose circumstances lead objective witness reasonably believe available use later trial quoting crawford accordingly ruled defendant right analysts authored reaching conclusion rejected commonwealth argument confrontation clause apply statements resulted scientific testing presumptively reliable clause noted commands assessed particular crucible quoting crawford doubted testing summarized certificates neutral reliable commonwealth suggested citing chapter verse various studies concluded orensic evidence uniquely immune risk manipulation mistake see two years later one year ago reiterated analysis faced state attempt evade bullcoming new mexico forensic report showed defendant concentration exceed legal limit drivers state tried introduce finding testimony person worked laboratory performed observed blood test certified results held foreclosed tactic report stated resembled certificates material respects slip signed documents providing results forensic testing designed fact criminal proceeding slip quoting state resort surrogate witness place analyst produced report satisfy confrontation clause bullcoming slip presence particular scientist reasoned enable bullcoming counsel ask questions designed reveal whether incompetence dishonesty tainted results slip repeating refrain held accused right confronted actual analyst unless unavailable accused opportunity pretrial bullcoming slip case piece report issue shows dna profile produced analyst cellmark laboratory allegedly vaginal swab taken young woman raped report identical one bullcoming material respects slip report made establish fact criminal proceeding identity attacker slip quoting see infra details results forensic testing evidence gathered police viewed bullcoming report cellmark analysis comparable title similarly describes relevant samples test methodology results likewise includes signatures laboratory officials compare cellmark diagnostics report laboratory examination lodging petitioner app bullcoming new mexico pp prior analysis substance report come evidence williams chance responsible analyst happened instead prosecutor used sandra lambatos scientist participated testing conduit piece evidence lambatos came stand two state analysts testified forensic tests performed one recounted developed dna profile sandy williams blood sample drawn arrest another told confirmed presence unidentified semen vaginal swabs taken book williams opportunity witnesses tests run course state still needed supply missing link show dna found semen vaginal swabs matched williams dna fill gap prosecutor called analyst cellmark testify dna profile produced swabs instead state called lambatos expert witness testify semen swabs contained sandy williams dna computer match generated male dna profile found semen vaginal swabs male dna profile identified originated sandy williams yes compare semen vaginal swabs male dna profile blood sandy williams yes semen identified vaginal swabs consistent originated sandy williams yes app lambatos rather cellmark employee informed trier fact testing vaginal swabs produced male dna profile implicating williams already decided case lambatos testimony functionally identical surrogate testimony new mexico proffered bullcoming nothing cure problem identified part straightforwardly applied decision crawford like surrogate witness bullcoming lambatos convey actual analyst knew observed events particular test testing process employed bullcoming slip surrogate testimony expose lapses lies testing analyst part ibid like lawyers bullcoming williams attorney ask questions analyst proficiency care took performing work veracity slip probe whether analyst tested wrong vial inverted labels samples committed technical error simply made results see app brief public defender service district columbia et al amici curiae describing mistakes fraud cellmark laboratory indeed williams lawyer even hamstrung bullcoming least surrogate witness bullcoming worked relevant laboratory familiar procedures true lambatos knowledge cellmark operations indeed record discloses may never set foot cellmark laboratory case law sufficient resolve case hen state elected introduce substance cellmark report evidence analyst generated report became witness williams right confront bullcoming slip stated last year precedent sensibly read way ibid ii plurality primary argument contrary tries exploit limit confrontation clause recognized crawford clause cautioned bar use testimonial statements purposes establishing truth matter asserted citing tennessee street illinois relied statement concluding lambatos testimony permissible view lambatos disclosed underlying facts cellmark report truth limited purpose explaining basis expert opinion factfinder assess opinion value plurality wraps holding similarly asserting lambatos recitation cellmark findings viewed prism state evidence law introduced establish truth matter concerning cellmark report ante see ante five justices agree two opinions reciting reasons argument merit lambatos statements cellmark report went truth state rely status expert circumvent confrontation clause requirements see ante opinion thomas see start kind case crawford mind acknowledging carveout clause cited tennessee street exemplary see crawford street claimed stationhouse confession murder sham police officer charged read aloud alleged accomplice confession forced repeat help rebut defense state introduced confession record jury see differed street rejected street confrontation clause claim state offered statement prove truth accomplice assertions murder disprove street claim police elicited confession street otherwise said truth admitted statement utterly immaterial thing mattered statement whether true false varied street situation different witness expert otherwise repeats statement basis conclusion statement utility dependent truth statement true conclusion based probably true determine validity witness conclusion factfinder must assess truth statement relies principal modern treatise evidence variously calls idea basis evidence comes truth help factfinder evaluate expert opinion weak factually implausible nonsense sheer fiction kaye bernstein mnookin new wigmore expert evidence pp ed supp one sympathize notes treatise desire permit disclosure basis evidence quite probably reliable routine analysis drug pretend introduced truth contents strains credibility ed see also people goldstein distinction statement offered truth statement offered shed light expert opinion meaningful unlike street admission statement context purpose separate truth factfinder nothing except assess truth credibility conclusion serves consider prosaic example involving scientific experts eyewitness tells police officer investigating assault perpetrator unusual birthmark left eye officer arrests person bearing birthmark let call starr committing offense trial officer takes stand recounts eyewitness told presumably plurality agree testimony violates confrontation clause unless eyewitness unavailable defendant prior opportunity ask whether anything changes officer couches testimony following way concluded starr assailant reliable eyewitness told assailant birthmark look starr one like surely framing make constitutional difference even though eyewitness statement explains basis officer conclusion remains case prosecution attempting introduce testimonial statement relevance proceedings apart truth defendant person made allowing admission evidence confrontation clause make parody strictures example dressed scientific clothing different case cellmark report identified rapist particular dna profile think quintessential birthmark confrontation clause prevented state introducing report evidence except calling stand person prepared see bullcoming slip state tried another route introducing substance report part parcel expert witness conclusion effect lambatos testified like police officer concluded williams rapist cellmark accredited trustworthy laboratory says rapist particular dna profile look williams identical one form testimony change nothing use cellmark statement remained bound truth statement came evidence without opportunity williams person made plurality right state ready method bypass constitution much hypothetical case wink nod confrontation clause pose bar forensic evidence plurality tries make plausible rationale rewriting lambatos testimony cellmark report according plurality lambatos merely assumed cellmark dna profile came vaginal swabs accepting sake argument prosecutor premise ante incorrect nothing lambatos testimony indicates making assumption considering hypothesis contrary lambatos affirmed without qualification cellmark report showed male dna profile found semen vaginal swabs app done otherwise case different nothing wrong lambatos testifying two dna profiles one shown cellmark report one derived williams blood matched straightforward application lambatos expertise similarly lambatos added cellmark report resulted scientifically sound testing vaginal swab link williams assault lambatos indicate cellmark report produced way saying vaginal swab contained dna matching testifying manner lambatos became like surrogate witness bullcoming person knowing nothing particular test testing process vouching regardless slip held confrontation clause requires something plurality also argues lambatos characterization cellmark report violate confrontation clause case involve bench trial ante emphasis deleted welcome plurality concession clause might forbid presenting lambatos statement jury see ante indicates plurality realizes testimony went beyond assumption presence judge transform constitutional question applying confrontation clause never considered relevant decisionmaker identity see davis washington case poor place begin lambatos description cellmark report offered truth basis evidence offered described earlier way factfinder consider whether statement supported opinion dna swabs came williams assessing statement truth see supra simple matter logic whether factfinder judge jury thus either case admission statement without opportunity violates confrontation clause see ante opinion thomas saying much doubt judge typically better jury excluding inadmissible evidence decisionmaking process perhaps judge perhaps plurality thinks understood consider lambatos representation cellmark report found circumstantial evidence established source sample cellmark tested reliability cellmark profile see ante indications contrary delivering verdict judge never referred circumstantial evidence plurality marshals instead focused lambatos testimony see record calling lambatos best dna witness ever heard referring williams guy whose dna according evidence experts semen recovered victim vagina take plurality point read context judge statements might best understood meaning something appear say see ante still point suggests admission lambatos statement harmless judge managed put mind whether factfinder confused error separate question whether error occurred plurality argument answer question case presents whether constitutional violation happened lambatos recited cellmark report bottom plurality rationale simple abdication labels although utility cellmark statement lambatos repeated logically depended truth plurality thinks case decided illinois rule holding facts underlying expert opinion admitted purpose see ante people pasch typically allow state law define federal constitutional requirements needless say perhaps confrontation clause constitutional rule like justice thomas observes even crawford allow clause scope dictated state federal evidentiary rules see ante indeed street independently reviewed whether statement introduced truth question issue case see crawford still firmly disconnected confrontation clause inquiry state evidence law overruling approach looked part whether statement fell within rooted hearsay exception quoting roberts decision made clear confrontation clause protections coterminous rules evidence plurality approach still worse approach allow prosecutors subterfuge indirection previously held confrontation clause prohibits imagine moment poorly trained incompetent dishonest laboratory analyst analyst bullcoming placed unpaid leave unknown reasons might qualify precedents prosecutor avoid exposing analyst simply introducing report see prosecutor escape fate offering results testimony another analyst laboratory see bullcoming slip plurality approach prosecutor choose dreams judge said best dna witness ever heard offer expert knows nothing test boasts impressive degrees provide testimony identical best actual tester might given dna extracted vaginal swabs matched sandy williams long state evidence rule says purpose testimony enable factfinder assess expert opinion basis tactic confined cases involving scientific evidence justice thomas points prosecutor similarly substitute experts kinds people making statements see ante plurality thus countenance constitution circumvention confrontation clause prevents state getting evidence front door state sneak back neat trick really way run criminal justice system wonder five justices reject iii plurality also argues second independent basis decision cellmark report falls outside confrontation clause ambit nontestimonial ante plurality tries number supporting theories vain one either conflicts precedents misconstrues case facts justice thomas rejects plurality views similar reasons thus bringing five number justices repudiate plurality understanding statements count testimonial see ante justice thomas however offers rationale deciding cellmark report nontestimonial think essay works better said done cellmark report testimonial statement according plurality declare cellmark report nontestimonial use trial dna report prepared modern accredited laboratory little resemblance historical practices confrontation clause aimed eliminate ante quoting michigan bryant thomas concurring judgment slip last year treated testimonial forensic report prepared modern accredited laboratory indeed declared report issue fell within core class testimonial statements implicating confrontation clause bullcoming slip internal quotation marks omitted see brief new mexico department health scientific laboratory division amicus curiae bullcoming discussing accreditation although plurality close quite ready able dispense decision see ante experience might yet show holdings bullcoming cases reconsidered plurality must explain support distinction laboratory analysis dna test case first stab plurality cellmark report prepared primary purpose accusing targeted individual ante test comes anyone guess justice thomas rightly shows derives neither text history confrontation clause see ante opinion concurring judgment basis precedents previously asked whether statement made primary purpose establishing past events potentially relevant later criminal prosecution words purpose providing evidence davis see also bullcoming slip bryant slip crawford none cases ever suggested addition statement must meant accuse previously identified individual indeed rejected related argument laboratory analysts subject confrontation witnesses plurality give good reason adopting accusation test plurality apparently agrees justice breyer prior suspect identification unlikely particular researcher motive behave dishonestly ante breyer concurring see ante plurality opinion surely typical problem laboratory analyses typical focus careless incompetent work rather personal vendettas predominant concern makes whit difference whether time laboratory test police already plurality next attempts invoke precedents holding statements nontestimonial made respond emergency rather create evidence trial bryant slip plurality insists cellmark report purpose catch dangerous rapist still large ante stretch ongoing emergency test facts case beyond recognition previously invoked test allow statements woman assaulted man shot stressed informal harried nature statements bryant slip made minutes slip events described actually happen ed davis emphasis deleted frantic victims criminal attacks officers trying figure occurred threats remained bryant slip internal quotation marks omitted face decisions nothing say laboratory analysts conducting routine tests far away crime scene case presents peculiarly inapt set facts extending precedents lambatos testified trial reports case prepared criminal investigation nd purpose eventual litigation app words purpose producing evidence enabling emergency responders testimony fits relevant timeline police send swabs cellmark november nine months rape receive results another four months see hardly typical emergency response finally plurality offers host reasons reports like one reliable prospect fabrication ante internal quotation marks omitted multiple technicians may work dna profile ante defects dna profile may often detected profile ibid see also ante opinion breyer done rejected identical arguments noting extensive documentation erious deficiencies forensic evidence used criminal trials see supra see also bullcoming slip citing similar errors laboratory analysis brief public defender service district columbia et al amici curiae discussing ystemic problems sample contamination sample switching mislabeling fraud dna labs scientific testing technical sure ante opinion breyer reliable people perform defendant may wish ask analyst variety questions much experience ever made mistakes past test right sample use right procedures contaminate sample way indeed scientific evidence plays larger larger role criminal prosecutions inquiries often important made yet fundamental point response claims über alles reliability scientific evidence us decide ex ante evidence trustworthy see see also bullcoming slip confrontation clause prescribes procedure determining reliability testimony criminal trials crawford procedure ispensing testimony obviously reliable akin dispensing jury trial defendant obviously guilty plurality second basis denying williams right confrontation also fails plurality find reason consistent precedents treating cellmark report nontestimonial report every conceivable respect statement meant serve evidence potential criminal trial simple fact sufficient resolve question justice thomas unique method defining testimonial statements fares better view confrontation clause regulates use statements bearing solemnity ante quoting davis cellmark report concludes qualify neither sworn certified declaration fact ante justice thomas approach grants constitutional significance minutia way undermine confrontation clause protections see point start precedent rejected kind argument applied kind document around time last year bullcoming state asserted forensic report issue nontestimonial unlike report sworn notary public responded applying confrontation clause sworn forensic report make right confrontation easily erasable next time laboratory file selfsame report without oath slip held noted earlier material respects forensic report bullcoming matched one slip see supra first law enforcement officer provided evidence state laboratory assisting police investigations see slip second analyst tested evidence prepared certificate concerning result ibid third certificate formalized signed document headed ibid internal quotation marks omitted enough compare checklist material features report case differences cellmark private laboratory contract state one thinks relevant report labeled certificate amounts maybe nickel worth difference similarities form function purpose dwarf distinctions see supra report official signed record laboratory test results meant establish certain set facts legal proceedings neither looks formal neither formal see ibid variances probably less found compared different law schools transcripts different companies cash flow statements different birth certificates difference labeling certificate one case report laboratory examination constitutional dimension indeed justice thomas approach accepted turn confrontation clause constitutional geegaw nice show little value prosecution avoid demands using right kind forms right kind language take long devise magic words rules principally never call anything certificate still worse new conventions precisely making statements less solem ante also make less reliable turn confrontation clause upside see crawford find implausible provision concededly condemned trial sworn ex parte affidavit thought trial unsworn ex parte affidavit perfectly ok surprising member adopted position justice thomas rightly says plurality decision diminis confrontation clause protection cases accused right confronted witnesses ante iv today decision prosecutor wishing admit results forensic testing produce technician responsible analysis result one two decisions issued last three years clear rule clear longer five justices control outcome today case agree little among though boast two accomplishments first approved introduction testimony williams trial confrontation clause rightly understood clearly prohibits second left significant confusion wake comes four justices desire limit bullcoming whatever way possible combined one justice view holdings frank knows decisions apparently longer mean say yet one tell way extent altered proposed limitation commands support majority better course case simply follow bullcoming decisionmaking provides guidance lower judges predictability litigating parties today plurality concurring opinions uncertainty sow bring relief judicial method virtues decide case consistently reasons stated bullcoming majority reverses confines decisions understand continuing govern every particular admission forensic evidence respectfully dissent footnotes consistent federal rules illinois rule evidence provides follows facts data particular case upon expert bases opinion inference may perceived made known expert hearing type reasonably relied upon experts particular field forming opinions inferences upon subject facts data need admissible evidence disclosure facts data jury permitted value disclosure substantially outweighs prejudicial effect fed rule evid probative value outweighs risk unfair prejudice people pasch disclosure occurs underlying facts revealed jury limited purpose explaining basis expert opinion truth matter asserted small difference lambatos actually said stand slightly revised version dissent find unobjectionable shows despite dissent rhetoric narrow argument little practical effect future cases prosecutors allowed exactly prosecution case long testifying experts testimony slightly modified along lines shown following course presumably constitute prosecutorial dodge subterfuge indirection neat trick sneak ing evidence countenancing constitutional violations wink nod see post opinion kagan suggest confrontation clause applies differently depending identity factfinder cf post opinion kagan instead point identity factfinder makes big difference evaluating likelihood factfinder mistakenly based decision inadmissible evidence see post opinion kagan doubt judge typically better jury excluding inadmissible evidence decisionmaking process perhaps judge emphasis added dissent finds evidence trial judge confusion statement petitioner guy whose dna according evidence experts semen recovered victim vagina post emphasis added dissent interprets phrase according evidence experts reference one expert lambatos said origin sample cellmark tested context however judge statement best understood attributing lambatos nothing conclusion match two dna profiles compared foundational facts one profiles came defendant came semen recovered victim vagina established expert testimony ordinary evidence point admissible evidence regarding identity sample cellmark tested excuses admission testimonial hearsay matter compare post thomas concurring judgment post kagan dissenting rather point substantial albeit circumstantial evidence matter reason infer trier fact must taken lambatos statement providing missing link applying due process clause held federal may determine whether rational trier fact found existence elements needed conviction state offense jackson virginia petitioner raised due process claim event identification petitioner assailant sufficient defeat claim see post kagan dissenting see advisory committee notes rule justice thomas justice kagan quote statements kaye bernstein mnookin new wigmore expert evidence pp ed hereinafter new wigmore critical theory expert without violating confrontation clause may express opinion based testimonial hearsay may circumstances disclose testimonial hearsay trier fact principal basis criticism seems fear juries even given limiting instructions view disclosed hearsay evidence truth matter asserted see referring reader detailed discussion mnookin expert evidence confrontation clause crawford washington new wigmore citing jury cases mnookin supra argument plainly application case like one judge sits trier fact supplement new wigmore authors discuss present case criticize reasoning illinois courts follows problem argument accepted illinois courts lambatos rely truth statements cellmark report reach conclusion claim evidence jury must credit order credit conclusion expert introduced something truth sheer fiction new wigmore supp emphasis added discussion flawed overlooks fact jury case explained trier fact rely testimonial hearsay order find lambatos testimony dna match supported adequate foundational evidence thus probative discussion first ground decision conclude without commenting kocak case dramatically appears beginning dissent case cellmark lab analyst realized testifying pretrial hearing error lab report dna profile attributed accused actually victim lesson cautionary tale nothing truism possible apparently incriminating dna profile mistakenly attributed accused requiring lab analyst analysts produced dna profile called prosecution witnesses neither sufficient necessary prevent errors since samples may mixed contaminated many points along way crime scene lab calling one lab analysts necessarily catch mistakes example mistake might made clerical employee responsible receiving shipments samples providing lab technicians needed trier fact make sure evidence whether direct circumstantial rules possibility mistakes every step along way usual course authentication defense counsel access sufficient information inquire question challenge procedures used laboratory seems prudent productive strategy experience might yet show holdings cases reconsidered reasons among others expressed dissents decisions produced decisions challenged case deemed binding precedents distinguished facts respect crawford see davis thomas concurring judgment part dissenting part footnotes plurality relies heavily fact case involved bench trial emphasizing judge sitting factfinder presumed jury understand limited reason disclosure basis testimony rely information improper purpose ante even accepting presumption point factfinder unable understand restricted purpose basis testimony instead point purportedly limited reason testimony aid factfinder evaluating expert opinion necessarily entails evaluation whether basis testimony true discussion history plurality relies beckwith sydebotham camp eng case experts asked render opinions ship seaworthiness based facts read sworn ex parte deposition witness purported seen ship deficiencies sure beckwith involved expert reliance testimonial hearsay beckwith english case decided ratification confrontation clause form expert testimony appear common feature early american evidentiary practice see wright broun kaye cellmark statements introduced nonhearsay purpose showing effect lambatos explain prompted search dna database match see graham federal practice procedure pp interim ed noting statements introduced effect listener implicate confrontation clause statements lambatos conveyed went well beyond necessary explain performed search lambatos merely disclose received dna profile cellmark rather disclosed cellmark statements profile male found semen vaginal swabs app facts nothing decision conduct search introduced truth plurality concludes confrontation clause implicated even record contain evidence rationally support finding cellmark produced scientifically reliable dna profile based vaginal swab ante far establishing legitimate nonhearsay purpose cellmark statements tennessee street complete lack evidence tending prove facts conveyed cellmark statements completely refute rationale trial announcing verdict expressly concluded petitioner dna matched dna semen recovered victim vagina absent evidence impossible trial reach conclusion without relying truth cellmark statement test results based semen swabs addition stated confrontation clause sought regulate prosecutorial abuse occurring use ex parte statements also reaches use technically informal statements used evade formalized process davis opinion concurring judgment part dissenting part case indication cellmark statements offered order evade confrontation plurality test prejudice defendant really wishes probe reliability statements introduced case person persons made statements may always subpoenaed defense questioned trial ante rejected reasoning well holding defendant subpoena power substitute right confrontation footnotes responding reasoning plurality confirms according plurality basis evidence supports credibility expert opinion showing relied drawn logical inferences sound factual premises ante quite right process involves assessing premises truth majority puts unsupported evidence record otherwise baseless allay factfinder fears expert reasoning ante said better plurality suggests lambatos testimony merely modern streamlined way answering hypothetical questions therefore raises constitutional issue see ante similarly plurality contends difference lambatos said allow involves slightly revis ing testimony consequence see ante statement true follows differs materially constitutionally statement true true according former statement merely logical proposition whose validity defendant contest questioning speaker assuming prosecutor tries prove statement premise witness defendant rebut effort contrast latter statement well contains factual allegation true defendant effectively challenge confronting person made recognizing difference two forms testimony insist archaism formality ensure line constitution defendants ability confront accusers prosecutors easily conform conduct constitutional directive plurality suggests much better thought ground complaint confrontation clause properly understood manages protect defendants without overly burdening state plurality asserts without citation reach ing truly remarkable conclusion wording lambatos testimony confused trial judge ante spends three pages explaining conclusion wrong see ante plurality responding argument imagining reach conclusion stated trial judge might well ignored lambatos statement cellmark report relied evidence conclude cellmark profile derived sample taken victim ante saying admission statement violated confrontation clause even judge ultimately put aside came evidence nothing truth see supra similarly plurality claims still without citation think evidence cellmark report insufficient see ante plurality must reading someone else opinion express view sufficiency evidence irrelevant confrontation clause issue took case decide plurality wrongly links two spending another five pages trumpeting strength cellmark report see ante plurality properly decide whether confrontation clause violation occurred williams trial determining williams guilty american criminal justice system works opposite way determining guilt holding trials accord constitutional requirements justice breyer attempt distinguish precedents opting simply adhere dissenting view set forth bullcoming see ante concurring opinion principally worries cases state call witness stand ix twelve technicians worked report see ante see also ante none cases including one presented question many analysts must testify given report may suggest cases lead analyst readily identifiable problem cases including one analyst came forward testify event future case presents issue focus broader question troubles justice breyer ante mere existence question reason wrongly decide case us bears repeating involved testimony twelve six three one zero cellmark analysts neither plurality gain purchase idea dna profile inherently inculpatory tends exculpate one billion people world today ante see ante evidence shares feature inculpatory single person exculpatory rest world one flipside one ever suggested logical corollary provides reason ignore constitution efforts ensure reliability evidence plurality justice breyer warn require analysts testify encourage prosecutors forgo dna evidence favor less reliable eyewitness testimony increase risk convicting innocent ante breyer concurring see ante plurality opinion neither opinion provides evidence even way anecdote view doubt exists dna evidence usually prosecutor powerful weapon prosecutor unlikely relinquish must bring right analyst stand consider lambatos told factfinder dna vaginal swabs matched williams dna match quadrillion black quadrillion white quadrillion hispanic unrelated individuals app eyewitness testimony replace evidence note well innocence network group particularly knowledgeable kinds evidence produce erroneous convictions disagrees plurality justice breyer view argues onfrontation analyst essential permit proper adversarial testing decrease risk convicting innocent brief innocence network amicus curiae justice thomas asserts need worry confrontation clause reaches attempts evade formalized process ante see ante hope right justice thomas provides scant guidance conduct novel inquiry motive