Opinion ID: 695539
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Director Fretthold's Affidavit

Text: 42 Although McCormick does not specifically complain that he was denied an opportunity to confront Director Fretthold, we infer such a challenge from his contention that he should have been permitted to cross-examine laboratory technicians. Further, as Director Fretthold's statements are the ones that unequivocally refute McCormick's false positive theory, we will interpret McCormick's argument broadly and consider whether the admission into evidence of Director Fretthold's affidavit infringed McCormick's right of confrontation. 43
44 We begin with the observation that Director Fretthold stated in his affidavit that there is virtually no possibility that the 'positive' result could be produced by any other drug taken by the subject, or by some interfering substance in the urine, since any such interfering substance would have to influence both methods to generate a false positive result. This statement completely debunks McCormick's false positive theory. 45 Had McCormick presented any evidence to support his theory, his interest in confronting Director Fretthold's statement might have had legal significance. 43 Indeed, the district court would then have had before it contradictory evidence whether those medications could cause a false result, making more important the issue of the credibility and knowledge of the witnesses who provided contradictory expert testimony. As it is, however, the only such evidence before the court was Director Fretthold's affidavit. Although his testimony is important to support a finding that the PharmChem urinalysis report is reliable, it is not necessary to contradict any exculpatory evidence proffered by McCormick. As Director Fretthold's affidavit was used in such a limited manner, we find McCormick's interest in confronting Fretthold analogous to--and no more important than--his interest in confronting any ordinary laboratory technician involved in testing the specimen. 46
47 Turning to the government's good cause for denying McCormick an opportunity to confront Director Fretthold, we note at the outset that oral hearsay, such as that found in Director Fretthold's affidavit, is generally considered to be less reliable than a business record, such as the PharmChem urinalysis report. 44 Nonetheless, we discern in this particular affidavit significant indicia of reliability. 48 First, Director Fretthold submitted his oral hearsay under oath and penalty of perjury, thus making his statements more reliable than unsworn hearsay generally. Second, whether a given medication can cause a specimen to test positive for a given controlled substance is essentially a scientific fact which, as observed above, can be verified or refuted through scientific methods. We comfortably assume that a substantial laboratory of national prominence, which performs a significant volume of urinalyses for the government and relies substantially on such work for its economic viability, values its reputation for accuracy and expertise in the field--as would its director of toxicology. As we view Director Fretthold's testimony as tantamount to that of a scientist who is merely confirming under oath a scientific fact that is verifiable and within his area of expertise, we are satisfied that his testimony has significant indicia of reliability. 49 Furthermore, we believe that the government has good cause not to require a laboratory director, such as Director Fretthold, to testify in person in every proceeding in which a defendant baldly asserts, without presenting any supporting evidence whatsoever, that a positive urinalysis was or could have been caused by some medication that he was then taking. Such a requirement would likely be disruptive to the laboratory and costly to the government, yet add little if anything to the reliability of the test results in question. 50 In Morrissey, the Supreme Court urged courts to apply evidentiary rules flexibly in revocation hearings, 45 and in Gagnon, the Court explained further that, [w]hile in some cases there is simply no alternative to live testimony, we emphasize that we did not in Morrissey intend to prohibit use where appropriate of the conventional substitutes for live testimony, including affidavits, depositions, and documentary evidence. 46 We deem entirely appropriate as a substitute for live testimony the government's use of documentary evidence such as the PharmChem urinalysis reports when, as here, the reliability of the information in the document is supported by both live and affidavit testimony. We further conclude that an affidavit of a laboratory director is also an appropriate substitute for his live testimony, especially when the purpose of that affidavit is merely to relate easily verifiable scientific information, such as that provided by Director Fretthold here. 47