Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
High court hears case on whether toxicology supervisors may testify without the bench tester
Summary
At oral argument in State of Washington v. Samantha Hall Haught, defense counsel said admitting a toxicology report and allowing a supervisor to testify violated the Confrontation Clause; the State replied the supervisor reviewed raw instrument data, controls and calibrators and had sufficient personal knowledge. The court asked probing hypotheticals but issued no decision.
The Supreme Court heard argument in State of Washington v. Samantha Hall Haught over whether a toxicology supervisor who reviewed lab files but did not perform the testing may lawfully testify about test results.
Petitioner counsel Jared Steed told the court the Confrontation Clause requires the person who "lays the hands on the evidence that is inculpatory" to testify and said the case falls squarely under Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming. He argued the certified toxicology report here — which attributed the presence of THC to testing done by a laboratory analyst who did not testify — was inculpatory and thus its author should have been produced for cross-examination. "The person who lays the hands on the evidence that is inculpatory is the person who has to testify," Steed said, urging reversal.
Justice…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
