Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Rozerick E. Mattox

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 2017No. 2015AP000158-CRPublished

1Dissent

*152SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.

¶ 43. (■dissenting). Circuit courts across the state frequently address the question presented in the instant case: "How does the Confrontation Clause apply to the panoply of crime laboratory reports and underlying technical statements written by (or otherwise made by) laboratory technicians?"1

¶ 44. This question lies at the intersection of the Confrontation Clause and the rules of evidence. Answering the question requires the application of the Confrontation Clause to numerous types of laboratory reports and witnesses testifying about or relying on reports they did…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  3. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  4. White v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Michigan v. BryantSupreme Court of the United States · 2011

12 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