Si xth Di vi si on Decem ber 10, 2010
No. 1-07- 3372 THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE OF IL LINO IS Plai ntif f-A ppelle e,
v. LORELL J

OHNSON, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court of Coo k C oun

ty
05 CR 4414
Honorable Ros em ar y Hi gg i n s- Gr an t, Jud ge P re siding JU STI CEMc BR

ID E de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Pu rsu ant t o t he su per visor y or der issued by the I lli nois S upr eme Co ur t in Peo ple v. Joh ns on , 23 7 I ll. 2 d 5 74 ( 20 10 ) , we va ca t ed o ur pr ev io us o pin io n a nd r ec o nsid er o ur de cis io n in light o f Pe o ple v. Williams , 238 Il l . 2d 125 (2010 ). Fo llowing a ju ry t rial which includ ed d eo xyribonu cleic ac id (D NA) evidenc e, defend ant Lorel l Joh ns on wasf

oun d gu i l ty of ag gra va ted cri m i na l sexu al as sa ul t an d n ot gui l ty of ag gr av ate d k i dn ap i n g a n d th e tr i al cou rt s en ten ce d h i m to a te rm of 30 yea rsto ru n con se cu ti v e to defen dant’s prior co nvi

ction. Def

endan t appeals, argui

ng that the adm

is si on of i ncul pator y D NA
ev ide nc e v io lat ed his s ixt h a men dme nt co nfr o nt at io n r igh t s a nd t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in ad mit t ing t his D NA ev ide nc e b ec au se a s uffic ien t fo un da t io n w as no t es t ab lishe d fo rt he fo r en sic
sc ien t ist ’s o pi nio n t es t imo ny. Th e f ol l owi ng ev i de nc e w asad

m i tted a t de f en da nt’ s j ury tri al . Sh ortl y af ter m i dn i gh t on July 12, 200 3, t he vict im, F.F. , w as st anding in line at Maxw ell’s, a neighbo rho od hot do g st and on the south side of

Chi cago. At t he tim

e, F.F. was addi

cted to drugs. Defen

dant approached F.F. as she st oo d in line. F. F. ha d neve r se en de fendant befo re t hat moment . F. F. a nd de fendant1-07-3372

2

spo ke. He t old her t hat he had dr ugs at his hou se. F.F. go t ou t of t he line and fo llowed defend ant to get the dru

gs. Sh e f oll owed h i m down an al l ey i nto the b acky

ard of an ab andone d bu

i l di ng. F.F. want ed t o lea ve, but defend ant gr abbed her bod y and dr agg ed he r u p t he st airs o f the building to the top fl

oor. F.F. y

el l ed, “ stop,” an

d “no,” b ut def endan t conti nue d to carry

her up the

stai rs. F.F . scra ped h er arm on the rai l i ng w hi l e try i ng to rea ch f or it. Wh en they reached the top of the stairs, def endan t pulled F.F. i

nto a dark ro om an

d threw her aga inst t he wa ll. F.F. hit her head on a low p ar t of t he ce ili ng. He p ushe d her aga inst t he windo w, put his hand a ro und he r t hro at and t old her t o be quiet or he wo uld t hro w her ou t t he win dow. Defendan

t pulled down F.F.’s pa

nts and then

hi s own pants. He then h ad vagi nal in tercour se wi

th F.F. F.F. descri

bed the ass aul

t as violen

t and that he “j am

me d” his penis i

nto her vagina. Defend ant re moved his penis fro m F.F. ’s vag ina, t ur ned t o t he side and e jaculat ed o n t he f l oor. Defend ant t hen pu lled up his p ant s and ra n do wn t he st airs. F.F. wait ed u nt il she co uld no long er hear defend ant on t he st airs. She left and w ent t o t he nea re st pay pho ne at 51s t St re et and A sh l an d to c al l the pol i ce . Sh e s aw de f en da nt r un ni ng ac ros s th e s tree t an d poi nte d h i m out to a gr ou p o f near by men, who t hen cha sed defend ant . Whe n t he po lice arr ived at F.F. ’s loc at ion, she was i ncoheren t, screami ng an d pointi ng i n sev eral di rections. A pol

ic e off ic er suggested she s eek treat me nt for the scrape on he

r arm that was b le edi

ng. F.F. ref

used and tri ed to t ell the pol ic e that de f en da nt wasrun

ni ng by ac ros s th e s tree t, but the of

f i cer di d n ot gi ve ch as e a nd the grou p of
me n di d not catch hi

m. F .F. led the pol

ic e off ic er to the aban

doned bui ldi ng an d to ld h im that de f en da n t h ad ej acul ate d on th e f l oor. The of

f i cer c al l ed f or a n ev i den ce tech n i ci an to co me to the scene and recover the stai

n. The stai

n was recovered on two swabs a nd was l ater subm itted1-07-3372

3

f or b i ol ogical

tes ti ng . F .F . b ec am

e f rustrate d w i

th th e p ol i ceof

f i cer b ec au se

sh e f el t he wa s n ot tryin g to catch defendant so she lef t t he scene an

d stayed with a f

riend f or several days. Lat er , in 20 04, F.F. ent er ed a dr ug r ehabilitat ion facility. I n Janu ar y 2005 , a det ect ive located F.F. at the fac il

ity . The detective s

poke with F.F . about t he sex ual assaul t. After
rece i vi ng i nf orma tion f rom th e Il l i noi s State Pol

i ce cri me lab(ISP lab ), def

endan t was a rrested
. F. F. vie we d a lineu p a t Ar ea On e a nd immed iat ely id en t ified de fen da nt as t he man wh o se xu ally
ass aul ted h er. Dur ing t he t rial, d efenda nt ’s at t or ney fil ed a “Mo t ion in limine to Ex cl ude Testi mony of Review ing Exp er t as La cking F ou ndat ion and Impr op er Hea rsa y.” T he mot ion as ser t ed t hat t he Stat e would seek to in

tro duce DNA ev

ide nce through an

anal ys t, Charlotte Word, who had reviewed the f

il e, but did n

ot partici pate in any of the actual

testing. Def

ense couns el

argued that “[i]nt ro duc t ion o f this evide nce s olely t hro ugh t his witne ss fails t o lay a p ro per fou ndat ion fo r t he t est ing co ndit ions a nd pr oc edu re s” a nd “violat es d efenda nt ’s r ight s t o c onfr ont at ion” u nder t he si xth am endm en t and arti cle I, se cti on 8, of

the Il l i noi s Consti

tution . The

tria l court he ard argumen t o n the m

ot ion a nd den ie d the motion. The c ourt hel d that t he testim

ony a bout t he DNA profi le was adm is si ble i f i t was the sort of i

nf ormation reasona

bl y rel ie d on by experts i n the f ie ld. Charl ot te Word t estif

ie d as a DNA

anal ys is expert. Defen

dant ma de no obj ection to her qua lif icat ion as an exp er t . S he st at ed t hat she w or ked at Or chid Ce llm ar k in Ger manto wn, Mar yland, fr om 1 990 t o 2 005 , w hen t he facility clos ed. In 2 004 , C ellmark had a co nt ra ct wit h t he ISP l ab to com pleteove rf l ow te sti ng . Ce l l mark wa s acc red

i ted by the A meri ca n A ss oci ati on of Blood Banks and by

the Ameri

can Society of Cri

me Lab orat ory Director s. Word wo rked as a l ab oratory d

i rector i n 20 04.1-07-3372

4

Wor d st at ed t hat she d id no t par t icipat e in the t est ing o f the swa b re co ver ed fr om t he cri me sc ene an

d the prepa rati on of a DNA prof i l e, b ut she was

ab l e to testi f

y as to the resu l ts. Her testim

ony wasba sed

on her rev

i ew of the n otes an d docum en tation kept i n the labf old er. She sai d that t hrough her rev

ie w of the case f

il e, she was

abl e to det ermi

ne that the proper pr o ce du r es we r e fo llo we d w it h t he ap pr o pr iat e c o nt r o l t es t s. T he r es ult s s ho we d a sing le ma le do nor of t he se men fro m the s wab. Base d o n her indepe ndent re view, Wor d co nclude d t hat t he
resu l ts were correct. Sh

e obs erved n

o di scre pan cies i n the ca se f

old er. The resul ts and the swab

were sent to t he ISP l ab. Followi ng def endan t’s arrest, a buccal swab was taken from def

endant and sent to the ISP lab for test in g. ISP lab

forensi c scien

tist Bria n Schoon testif

ie d at tr ia l that he recei ved def endan t’s buccal swab i n Jun e 2005. He performe d tests and prepared a DNA profi le from the buccal

swab. Sch

oon compared defend ant ’s DN A pr ofile wit h t he single male d ono r D NA pr ofile o bt ained fr om t he sw ab and
co nclude d t hat t he pr ofiles mat ched . S cho on c ond uct ed a st at istica l analysis and fo und t hat t he DNA profi

le from the swab woul

d be ex pected to occur in 1 i

n 710 quadri

ll ion bla ck, 1 in 550 qua dr ill ion whit e o r 1 in 430 qua dr ill ion Hisp anic individuals. Scho on s t at ed a ll of his resu lts a nd
co nc lu sio ns we r e t o a r ea so na ble de gr ee o f sc ien t ific ce r t ain t y. Def endan t di d not of

f er an y evi den ce i n h i s ca se-i n-chi ef . Fol l owi ng d el i berati ons, th

e j ury found def endan t guil ty of aggrav

ated crim in al sexual assaul t and not guil

ty of aggrav

ated kidna pi ng. D ef endan t fi l ed a m otion f or a ne w tri al , whi ch

i nc l uded clai m s tha t the tri al court
er re d in o ver ru ling defense co unse l’s objec t ions fo r fo unda t ion and co nfro nt at ion t o t he t est imony about the Cell

ma rk DNA profi

le . The trial

court deni

ed the m ot ion a nd sub sequentl

y s entenced defend ant t o 3 0 year s in priso n t o be ser ved c ons ecu t ive to his sent ence for a pr ior co nvictio n.1-07-3372

5

This ap peal f oll owed. On ap pe al, de fen da nt ar gu es t ha t t he DN A p r o file p r ep ar ed by Ce llmar k w as ina dmis sible because (1) it was test im

onial hearsay an

d vi olated his rights under t he confrontat ion cl ause because defen dant did n ot have an opportunity to cross-exam in e any of the ana

ly sts who prepared t he pr ofile, a nd ( 2) t he St at e failed t o lay a p ro per fou ndat ion fo r t his evidenc e as t her e wa s no evidenc e t hat t he eq uipment use d t o p re par e t he pr ofile was ade qua t ely calibrat ed a nd func t ioning pr o pe r ly. Initiall y, the St ate points o ut that defendant did not raise any objection that Schoo n’s t est imony violat ed his c onfr ont at ion r ight s in his mot ion in limine nor in hi s m ot ion f or a new trial , and theref

ore, any error in

Schoon’s testim

ony i s f orfei ted. To preserve an

is sue f or review, def endan t mu st both

obj ect at tri al

and i n a wri tten posttrial

motion
. People v . Woods , 214 Ill . 2d 455, 470 (2005), citin

g People v . Enoch , 12 2 I l l . 2d 17 6, 1 86 (1 98 8) . If

a def en da n t f ai l s to sati sf y ei ther prong of

thi s test, h

i s ch al l enge i s con sidered

wai ve d on a ppea l
. Woods , 214 Ill . 2d at 470. “Thi s rule

is particularly

appropriate when a

defen dant argues that the Stat e fai le d to la y t he pr o pe rt ec hnic al fo un da t io n fo rt he ad miss io n o f ev ide nc e, an d a de fen da nt 's la ck o f a t imely and s pec ifi

c o bject ion d epr ives t he St at e o f the op po rt unit y to co rr ect any deficiency in the foundational

proo f at the trial

le vel .” Woods , 2 14 I ll. 2d a t 470 . T hus, any issue r ega rd ing Schoon’s testim

ony i s f orfei ted. Ho weve r, in his reply brief, defend ant asse rt s t hat sho uld we find tha t he fo rfeit ed a ny error i n re spe ct to Schoon’ s testi mony, then

we shoul d rev i ew that i ssue f

or pl ai n error. Defendant also contends that he may ra ise plain error for the fir st time in his reply bri ef, despite the fa ct that Supreme Co urt Rule 34 1(h)(7) holds that “[ p]oints not argued are waiv ed and shall1-07-3372

6

no t be raise d in the re ply brie f.” 210 Ill. 2d R. 3 41 (h)(7). De fendan t cites to th e sup reme cou rt’s deci sio n in Peo ple v. Wil li ams , 19 3 I ll. 2d 306, 347-4 8 (200 0), in whi ch the supr eme cour t f ound that it was not preclud ed from reviewing the defendant’s pla in error a rgument despite h er f

ailure to rai se it in he r o p en in g b rie f. Supreme Court Rule 615(a) s tates that “ [a] ny er ror, defect , ir

regula rity , or variance which do es n ot affect sub stan tial rig hts shal l be dis regard ed . Plain erro rs or d efect s affectin g sub stan tial rights may

be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.” 134 Ill. 2d R. 61 5( a). “U nd er t he pl ain err or ru le , is su es no t p ro pe rly p res erv ed ma y be co ns id ere d b y a revie win g co urt u nd er tw o li mi ted circ um stan ces : (1) wh ere t he evid en ce i s clo sely b alanc ed , so as to preclude ar

gument that a

n innocent person was wr ongfull y convi cted; or (2) wher e the al leged
err or i s s o subs tantial that

itaf f ect ed the f

undame nta l f

ai rne ss of

the p roc eedi ng, and reme dy ing the err or is neces sar

y t o preserv e the integr

ity of t he judicial process. ” People v. Hall , 19 4 I ll. 2d 30 5, 3 35 (20 00 ). “ How ev er , b ef orei n v oki n g th e p l ai n er ror e x ce pti on , ‘ i t i s a pp rop riate

to determi ne wh ether error o ccurred at all ,’ becaus e wi thout error, there can b e no pl ai n error.” Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 372 Ill . App. 3d 179, 181 (2007), quo ting People v . Wade , 131 Ill . 2d 370, 376 (1 989 ). The re for e, we w ill re view t he issue t o d et er mine if t her e wa s any er ro r be for e co nsider ing i t unde r plai n error. The si xth am endm ent to t he Un

ited States Constitution provi des that: “In al l c rim in al pro secutions, t he accused shal l en joy the right *** t o be confront ed with the witnesses agai nst him ***. ” U. S. Co nst ., amend. VI . T his par t of t he sixt h amendment is kno wn as t he Conf rontation Cl

aus e an d app l i es to the

statesthrough

the f ourteen th am endm en t. Peo ple v. St ec hly , 2 25 I ll. 2d 2 46, 264 (2 007 ). In Cra wf ord v . W ashi

ng ton , t he Su pr eme Co ur t he ld1-07-3372

7

“[ w] her e t es t imon ial st at eme nt s a re at issu e, t he o nly indic ium o f re liabilit y suffic ient t o sa t isfy constitutional

dem ands is the one the Consti tut ion a ctuall y pres crib es: conf

rontat ion.” Craw f

ord
v. W ashi ng ton , 541 U .S. 36, 68 -69, 15 8 L. Ed . 2d 177 , 203, 12 4 S. Ct. 135 4, 1374 (2004 ). “However, the Craw f

ordCo ur t explicitly dec lined t o d efine what exac t ly m ake s a st at ement ‘testim onia l.’ ” St ec hly , 225 Ill . 2d at 266; see Craw f ord , 541 U.S. at 68, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 203, 124 S. Ct. at 1374. Th

e hears ay rule gen eral l y prohi bi ts the i ntroduction

of a n out-of -court statem en t used to prove the

truth of the m atter ass erted. People v . Spicer , 379 Ill . App. 3d 441, 449 (2007). But t he Craw f ordCou rt poi nte d out th

at “ [t]h e [C onf ron tation] Cl au se also doesnot bar the use of

testim onia l s tatements f

or purpo ses other than establ is hi ng the truth of the m

atter asserted. See Tennes see v. Street , 47 1 U .S. 40 9, 4 14 [, 8 5 L . Ed . 2d 42 5, 4 30 -3 1, 1 05 S. Ct. 2078, 2081-82] (1985). ” Craw f ord , 541 U.S. at 59 n.9, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 197 n.9, 124 S. Ct. at 1369 n.9. Here, defen

dant asserts that the DNA profi le prepared by

Cellm ark was testim

onia l hearsay in violation of

the confrontation cl

ause si nce n o one who worked o n i

ts anal ys is testifi ed at his tri al
. Rec ent ly, the Illinois Su pr eme Co ur t in Pe o ple v. Williams , 238 Il l . 2d 125 (2010 ), considered the is sue rai sed by defen dant. In that case, the defen dant was convi

cted of aggravated cri m i na l sex ual ass aul t, aggrav ated ki dna pi ng a nd a ggrav ated rob bery . At the

bench trial , a f orens i c sc i en

tis t wi th the ISP labtesti f

i ed th at the v

i cti m ’ssex ual ass aul t ki t was s en t to Cel l mark fo ran alys is a nd a D NA pr o file w as pr ep ar ed
. T he sc ien t ist co mpa r ed t he Ce llmar k D NA pr o file with the de fen

dant’s DNA

profi le and concl

uded that they were a m

atch. The sci

entis t admi tt ed that sh e di d not perf orm a ny of the ph y sical testi ng on the s am pl es h erse l f
. Williams , 238 Ill . 2d at 131 . O n app eal t o t he su pr eme co ur t , t he de fendant ar gue d t hat t he St at e intr od uce d t he1-07-3372

8

Cellmark r epo rt t o p ro ve t he t ru t h of t he mat t er asse rt ed a nd t he r epo rt amou nt s t o he ar say as t he State’s ex pert woul d not hav e b een

ab l e to ma

tch def endan t’s D NA prof i l e wi thout the C el

l mark report. The

State res ponde d tha

t the ex pert’s testi mony showed that she onl

y use d the Cel l mark report to expl

ai n h ow she reached h

er own conc l usi on. Williams , 238 Il

l . 2d at 14 3. The Williams cou

rt noted tha t i t “ has l ong he l d that p rohi

bi ti ons ag ai ns t the ad m i ss i on of h ea rs ay do n ot ap pl y wh en an ex pert te sti f i es to un derl y i n g f ac ts a n d data , not ad

m i tted i n to evi dence, f or t he purpose of ex

pla in in g the basis of h

is opini on.” Williams , 238 Ill . 2d at 143, ci ting Peop l e v . Lov

ej oy , 2 35 I ll. 2d 9 7, 142 (2 009 ). The sup re me co ur t co nclude d t hat t he expert’s testim

ony a bout t he Cel

lm ark report was not admi

tt ed for the truth of the matter
as se r t ed , bu t inst ea d t o es t ab lish t he un de r lying fa ct s a nd da t a u se d t o r ea ch he rex pe r t o pin io n in the def endan t’s c ase . Williams , 238 I ll . 2d at 145. As the co urt pointed ou t, the eviden ce agains t the defe ndan t was the expert’s opin

ion, n ot the Cel lm ark report , and the expe

rt t estif ie d about her
conc l usi ons on the wi tnes s stan d. Williams , 23 8 Il

l . 2d at 1 45- 46. Th e e xp ert te sti f i ed base d on he r own ex pe rti se i n c om pa ri ng the two pr of i l es , on e f rom a b l ood s am

ple a nd the othe r f rom semen p re par ed by Ce llm ar k, and d id no t obs er ve any pr oblems in t he cha in of cu st od y or any si gns of c ontam

i na tion or degradation of

the evi den ce. Th e su prem e court held tha

t the Ce l l mark report was

not use d to show th

e truth of the m atter ass erted a

nd was n ot hears ay . Williams , 238 Ill . 2d at 147. We re ach t he sa me co nclusio n as t he su pr eme co ur t in Williams . Word, a Cel l mark anal ys t, t estif ie d about the lab orat ory’s procedures an d practices regardi

ng DNA testing, though she di d not part ic ipa

te in the testing. She us ed the report that was prepared as the basi s of her expert opini

on that t he proper procedures were foll owed in the anal ys is . Defen

dant’s attor ney1-07-3372

9

was abl e to cro ss-exam

in e Word about the basi s of her opini on and cal

le d attention to the fact t ha t she did no t pa r t icip at e in t he t es t ing an d t ha t she as su med t ha t t he an alys t s p r o pe r ly doc um en ted each pa rt of the tes ti ng , as req ui red by Ce l l mark . The s am

e re as oni ng hol dstrue f or Schoon. He used the Cel lm ark report as the bas is

for part of hi s opin

ion that the m

al e DNA prof i l ed obta i ne d f rom the cri me s cene matc he d de f

en da nt’ s D NA . The C el

l mark rep ort wa s n

ot offered to p rove t he trut h of i ts co ntents, but was used as part of the bases for two experts’ opi ni ons . A cc ordi

ngl y , we f i nd no Craw f

ordvi ola tion i n th i s ca se, a nd th us, n o error. A f ter b rief i n g h ad con cl uded i n th i s c as e, th e U

n i ted Sta tes Su pr em e C our t i ss ue d i ts dec ision in Me l en

de z- Di az v . M as sa ch us etts , 557 U.S. ____, 174 L. Ed. 2d 314, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009 ), whi ch

revi si ted the conf rontation cl

aus e un der Craw f

ord . Th us , w e c on si

der w h at i m pact, if any, this c ase has o n t he pr ese nt cas e. In Melendez-Di az , the def

en da n t wa s ch arge d w i

th dis tributi ng an d traffi cki ng cocai ne. Rather than

off er li ve testim ony to prove that t he sub stance
was co caine, t he pr os ecu t ion “su bmitt ed t hre e ‘ce rt ifi cat es o f analysis’ sho wing t he r esu lts o f the for ensic ana lysis pe rfo rmed on t he se ized s ubst ance s. T he ce rt ifi cat es r epo rt ed t he we ight of t he seized bags and s t at ed t hat t he bag s ‘[ have] been e xamined wit h t he fo llowing r esu lts: The substanc e was f

ound to contain : Cocain

e.’ [Ci tation.] The certif

ic ates were sworn to before a notary publ

ic by anal ys ts *** as required un

der Massach

usetts law.” Melendez-Di az , 557 U.S. at ___, 174 L. Ed. 2d at 320, 129 S. Ct. at 2531. Massachuse tt s l aw permi

tt ed the use of suc

h aff ida vi ts to provide prima facie

evidenc e o f the analyzed subs t ance 's co mpo sitio n, q ualit y, and
net weight. Melendez-Di az , 55 7 U
. S. at __ _, 17 4 L
. E d. 2d at 32 0, 12 9 S
. Ct
. at 25 31
. At t r ial, t he de fendant objec t ed t o t he ad mission o f the se c er t ifi cat es, but his objec t ion wa s o ver ru led and the jury f ound t he defen

dant guilty . On appeal, the defendant chal len ged this admi

ssion as a1-07-3372

10

vio lat io n o f his s ixt h a men dme nt r igh t s, bu t t he ap pe llat e c o ur t r eje ct ed t he de fen da nt ’s cla im, rel y i ng on a Ma ss ac hu setts Su

pre me C ourt dec i si

on w hi ch he l d that “

the au thor s of certi f i ca tesof forensi c anal ys is are not subj ect to confrontation un der the Six

th Am endm ent.” Melendez-Di

az , 557 U.S. at ___, 174 L. Ed. 2d at 320, 129 S. Ct. at 2531. The state supreme court deni ed review. The Suprem

e Court found that “[t]he ‘certif ic ates’ are f

unctiona ll y i dentic al to li ve, in -court testim

ony, doi ng ‘precisel

y w hat a wi tness does on di

rect exam in ation.’ ” Melendez-Di

az , 557 U.S. at ___, 174 L. Ed. 2d at 321, 129 S. Ct. at 2532, quot in g Da vi s v . W ashi

ng ton , 547 U.S. 813 , 830, 16 5 L. Ed . 2d 224 , 242, 12 6 S. Ct. 226 6, 2278 (2006 ). Ac cordi ngl y , the C ourt held t hat “unde r o ur dec ision in Craw f ordt he ana lysts’ a ffi

davit s we re t est imonial sta t ement s, a nd t he ana lysts w er e ‘wit nesse s’ fo r p ur po ses o f the Sixt h Amendment . Abse nt a sho wing t hat t he
an al y sts wereun av ai l ab l e to te sti

f y at tr i al an d th at p eti ti on er h ad a p rior oppor

tun i ty to
cross -ex am

i ne them , peti tion er wa s en titl ed to ‘ “ be conf ronted wi th” ’ the a na l y sts at trial .” (Em phasi s om i tted.) Melendez-Di

az , 557 U.S. at ___, 174 L. Ed. 2d at 321-22, 129 S. Ct . at 2532, quot in

g Craw f ord , 54 1 U .S. at 5 4, 1 58 L. Ed. 2d at 1 94 , 12 4 S . C t. a

t 13 65 . “ The S i

xth Am endm ent does not permi

t t he prosecution to prove its case v ia ex par teout -of-co urt aff

idav its, and the adm

is si on of such

evi dence agai

nst [the defe

ndan t] was erro r.” Melendez-Di az , 557 U.S. at ___, 1 74 L. E d. 2d a

t 332, 129S. Ct. at 254 2. In Williams , t he s up re me c o ur t also ad dr es se d t he a pp licab ility o f Melendez-Di azt o t his f actual si tuati on an d concl uded that i t di d not ch

ange th e court’ s f

i ndi ngs . “In Melendez-Di

az , t he di sputed evidence was a ‘bar e- bone s st at ement ’ t hat t he su bst ance was co caine, and t he1-07-3372

11 defen dant ‘did not know what test s the anal ys ts performed, wh

ether th ose tests were routi

n e, an d w h eth er i n ter pr eti n g th ei r re su l ts
re quir ed t he exe rc ise o f judgment or t he us e o f skills that t he analy sts may not have po ssessed. ’ Melendez-Di az , 557 U.S. at

__ _, 1 74 L. Ed. 2d

at 3 27 , 12 9 S . C t. a

t 25 37 . H ere, [the ex

pert] testifi ed about her own experti se, judgm ent, and ski

ll at in terpret ation of the s

peci fi c alle le s at the 13 loci , and conf irm ed her gen eral knowl edge

of the protocol s an

d proced ures of C el l mark. [The expert] al so conducted her own statistical anal ys is of the DNA
match . She

did not si m pl y read to the

j udge , si ttin g asa f act f i nde r, f rom Ce l l mar k' s rep ort. T

h i s is i n con tra st to Ce l l

mar k' s rep ort, which did no t include a ny compa ra t ive analysis of t he el ec trop h erogram

s or DN A pr of i l es an d w as n ot i n trod uc ed i n to evidenc e. Cellmark's elect ro pher og ra m, ra t her , w as p ar t of t he pr oc ess u sed by [t he exp er t ] in re nder ing her op inion co ncluding t ha t t he pr o files mat ch ed
. T hu s, [ t he ex pe r t ’s ] o pin io n is cat ego rically different fro m the c er t ifi cat e in Melendez-Di

az .” Williams , 238 Ill . 2d at 149-50. The hold ing in Melendez-Di azis dis tingui shab le from the in stant case as wel

l. W ord, though not t he an

al ys t who performed the tests, was a supervi sor at Cell

ma rk and testif

ie d at de f en da n t’s trial ab out th e l ab pr oce ss an d th e te sts perf orm ed on th e D NA pr of i l es . Th e S tate pres en ted m ore than a “ ba re b ones statem en t” ab out the proce dures

em ploye d at Ce l l

mark.1-07-3372

12

Ba se d up on a

l l of the ab ove , we

con cl ude tha t no e rror oc cu rre d a s a res ul t of the i ntr oduc ti on of Word’ s testi

mony . Ac cordi

ngl y , there wasno pl

ai n error. Ne xt, de f en da nt c onte nds th at the Sta te f ai l ed to es tab l i sh

a p rope r f oun da ti on f or ad m i ss i on of th e C el l mar k D NA pr of i l e b ec au se

th ere w as

n o ev i den ce th at th e e qui pm en t us ed to prepa re the prof i l e was adeq uatel y cal i bra ted an d f unc tion i ng properl

y . In Wi l son v . Clark , th e Il

l i noi s S upr em e C ourt adopte d R

ule 7 03 of

the Fe de ral Rul esof Evidence, al

lowi ng an expert to giv

e hi s opin ion b ased on f

acts not in ev

ide nce i f those f acts are “ ‘of a type reasonably

reli ed upon by

experts i n the particul

ar fi el d.’ ” Wi l son v . Clark , 84 Ill . 2d 186 , 19 3 (1 981 ), q

uoti ng Fe d. R . Ev

i d. 7 03. How ever, where the ex pe rt testi mony i s b as ed upon an elec t ro nic or mechanica l device, t he exp er t must pr ovid e so me fou ndat ional pr oo f tha t t he dev i ce was f unc tion i ng properl

y at the ti me i t was u sed
. People v . Raney , 324 Ill . App. 3d 703, 710 (20 01) ; s eealso People v . Byn um , 2 57 I ll. App. 3d 5 02 ( 199 4) . I n Raney , t he de fendant
co nt en de d t ha t t he St at e fa iled t o es t ab lish a pr o pe rfo un da t io n fo rt he ad miss io n o f sc ien t ific
resu l ts f rom th e gas ch romotography

mass spe ctrometer (GC MS) m ach i ne . The revi ewi ng c ourt found that the record contained n o evi dence regardi

ng wh ether the GCMS m

achi ne was f unc tion i ng properl

y at the ti me i t was u sed

to anal y ze the su bstanc e. Raney

, 324 Ill . App. 3d at 710. The Raney

co ur t did r ec o gn ize t ha t “[ i]t may no t be fea sible fo rea ch ex pe r t t o pe r so na lly test t he i nstrume nt reli ed upon for purposes of determi ni ng what is a s

uspected contro ll

ed substanc e.” Raney

, 324 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 710. This issu e wa s also re so lved in Williams . In that case , no Cellmark r epr ese nt at ive testi f i ed, b ut the D NA ex pert f rom th e ISP l abstated that Cel

l mark was an

accredi ted lab oratory
and was requi red to f oll ow spe ci f i ed gu i del i ne s i n orde r to perf orm D NA anal y si s. The ex

pert1-07-3372

13

“ maintaine d that Cellmark nece

ssarily met the threshold

of prop er DNA analysi

s because C

ellmark w as an accredited l aborator

y and follo wed guidelines that sh e had person ally dev eloped. ” Williams , 23 8 I ll. 2d a t 140 . T he su pr eme co ur t dist inguished bet wee n t he t est ing o f narc ot ics, a s do ne in Raney , and the anal

ysi s done in i

ts case. T he court found that “the t esting of narcotics usin g a GCMS
ma chi ne i s not comparabl

e to t he sci

entif ic process at issue i

n thi s case.” Williams , 238 Ill . 2d at 140. The expert i

n the def endan t’s case di d not “regurgitate results gen erated by a m achi ne,” but inst ea d c o nd uc t ed he ro wn ind ep en de nt ex amina t io n o f t he da t a r ela t ed t o t he sa mple s o f ge ne t ic
material , i nc l udi ng i tem s f rom C el l mark an d f rom th e ISP cri me lab
. Williams , 238 Ill . 2d at 140. The Williams co ur t furt her not ed t hat t he bur den is o n t he ad ver se p ar t y to challenge t he f acts u nde rl y i ng th e opi ni on on c ross-exa m i na tion
. Williams , 2 38 I ll. 2d a t 140 . T her efo re , “t he i ss ue of [the ex pert’ s] re l i an

ce on Ce l l mar k' s rep ort w en

t to the w ei

gh t of h er opi n i on an d n ot i ts adm is si bi li ty.” Williams , 238 Ill . 2d at 141, citing Melendez-Di az , 557 U.S . at ___ n.1 , 174 L. Ed . 2 d at 322 n.1 , 1 29 S . C t . a t 253 2 n. 1 ( 200 9) (st at ing t hat it w as no t t he ca se t hat “anyone whose testim

ony m ay be rel evan t in es tabli shi ng the ch ai n of cus to dy, authen

tici ty of the s am

ple , or accu racy of the testi

ng d evi ce, m ust app ear i

n pe rson as p art of th

e prose cution' s ca se” ). Thi s case presen

ts a stro nger f

oundational

grounds as a Cel

lm ark director test if

ie d at def endan t’s trial . Word tes

tif i ed as a DNA ex pert, wi thout obj ection, an

d sh e worke d at Ce l l

mark
as a labor at or y direct or . S he t est ifi ed e xt ensively abo ut Cellmark’ s ac cr edit at ions a nd t he thorough revi ew re qui

red to attai

n s uch accredi tations. Sh

e stated that the proper pr

ocedure
mandated s

peci f i c notation s an

d the sub j ect ca se f

i l e i ndi cated th at those procedu res were f oll owed. He

r opi ni on wa s b ase d on th

i s rev i ew of the c ase f i l e. Un der Williams , any

chal le nge1-07-3372

14

to Word’s testim

ony went to its weigh

t, not its adm

is si bi li ty. Theref

ore, we fi nd no f oundational error in thi s case. Ba se d on the f oreg oi ng rea sons, we a f

f i rm the de ci si on of the ci rcu i t cou rt of Cook Co un t y. Af fi rmed. GA RCIA, P.J., an

d CA HILL , J., con

cur.