Bullcoming v. New Mexico

Summarize the statement below

In Bullcoming v. New Mexico, Donald Bullcoming was arrested for aggravated driving under the influence. He claimed that he was in an accident, left the scene and began drinking then returned to the scene and was arrested. He had his blood drawn and processed and the result was he had a blood alcohol content of 0.21. At Mr. Bullcoming's trial the lab analyst, Mr. Caylor, that performed the blood concentration test and wrote the report did not appear to be cross examined but instead a substitute lab analyst, Mr. Razatos, came to be cross examined. Mr. Razatos did not run the test or write the report; he also did not even review the report. According to the argument, he only appeared in court to make the statement that the blood alcohol concentration of Mr. Bullcoming was 0.21. In addition to that, Mr. Caylor did not appear at the trial because he was on unpaid leave from his job for an unknown reason. The argument in this case was whether or not Mr. Razatos was an appropriate substitute for Mr. Caylor and if Mr. Bullcoming had his sixth amendment right to confront witnesses against him violated.

The argument for Mr. Bullcoming was that his sixth amendment right was violated because he did not get the opportunity to cross examine the person that ran his test and wrote the report. Mr. Bullcoming did not get the chance to ask what Mr. Caylor's procedures were, if there was anything that went haywire, if the sample was tampered with or why Mr. Caylor was on unpaid leave. The argument also stated that the fact that Mr. Razatos was not the person who ran the test and did not even review the report that he was an unacceptable substitute for Mr. Caylor. The defense for Mr. Bullcoming wanted to make the point that the appropriate person be brought to trial to be cross examined by the defense and that the report that Mr. Caylor made was in fact a testimonial statement. Mr. Bullcoming's defense used the example that a time stamp on a fax machine is not a testimonial statement because it was generated by the machine itself without any human alteration but a report written by a person and printed is testimonial because it was created by a human and then printed. I personally agree with this example because the machine that tests for blood alcohol content does not just take blood in and produce a number it needs to be manipulated by a person and the report that is submitted for trial does not just say what the result was. It is a certified report that states the result and what was done to reach that result. So in my opinion, I would classify the report as a testimonial statement and I would want Mr. Caylor to be the one at the trial for cross examination.

The Justices made the argument that if the raw data from the machine that tests for blood alcohol content was produced at trial, and not the report, to be interpreted by any lab analyst if that would be an appropriate substitution. I feel like this would be a simple solution to the predicament because the results would be intercepted at the trial and the defense would have the opportunity to cross examine that witness as to how they reached their conclusion. They could also testify as to how things are run in the lab and standard procedures. The only thing they could not testify on is if anything went haywire during this specific test, if the sample was in fact Mr. Bullcomings, if the sample has been tampered with and in this case specifically why Mr. Caylor was on unpaid leave. I think this solution is better than what was done in Mr. Bullcoming trial but it is not as good as having Mr. Caylor at the trial. Mr. Bullcoming's sixth amendment right was violated because he did not get to cross examine the person who is producing evidence against him.