Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Marshall v. People

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided July 1, 2013No. Supreme Court Case No. 11SC596Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChief Justice Bender

{ 26 The majority holds that the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a lab report, which is conceded to be testimonial evidence, through testimony of a supervisor who neither performed the laboratory analysis nor supervised its performance. Maj. op. 118. Reliance upon forensic evidence has increased in criminal cases and the need to retain the traditional right of cross-examination must nonetheless be preserved. This case is only one example of the importance of testimonial forensic reports such as the lab report here. In my view, admitting a testimonial report without…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  3. Bullcoming v. New MexicoSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  4. United States v. MooreCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2011
  5. State v. CabezuelaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2011

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API