Opinion ID: 675239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Police Chemist's Hearsay Testimony

Text: 18 Appellant argues that his confrontation rights were violated because the court permitted the use of police chemist Dan Green's notes without Dan Green testifying at trial. Under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him; ... Generally, the Confrontation Clause prohibits the introduction of hearsay testimony unless it meets requirements of trustworthiness and necessity. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2538-39, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). Whether the Confrontation Clause has been violated is a question subject to de novo review. Myatt v. Hannigan, 910 F.2d 680, 685 (10th Cir.1990). Appellant argues that neither requirement has been met in this case. 19 The requirement of trustworthiness or reliability is met by a showing that the hearsay evidence (1) fits within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or (2) carries particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. United States v. Jefferson, 925 F.2d 1242, 1254 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 238, 116 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991) (citing Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). In this case the parties dispute whether a police chemist's notes fit within a firmly rooted hearsay exception as a business record under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) or a public record under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8). See United States v. Baker, 855 F.2d 1353 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1069, 109 S.Ct. 2072, 104 L.Ed.2d 636 (1989) (police laboratory reports on controlled substances fit business records exception). But see United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 66-68 (2d Cir.1977) (police chemist report does not qualify under either exception). The court need not address this issue, however, because the notes have sufficient particularized indicia of reliability. The notes concern mechanically objective tests performed on the powder and were taken contemporaneously with the performance of the tests. See Reardon v. Manson, 806 F.2d 39, 41, 43 (2d Cir.1986), cert denied, 481 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 1903, 95 L.Ed.2d 509 (1987). Green's computations were checked by Brady, and his results were verified by Hughes' testing of the substance. Green's notes concerning the condition of the evidence before he conducted his tests are consistent with the police officers' testimony. The court rejects appellant's argument that Green may have been motivated to falsify his notes in order to help secure a conviction. Even assuming, as appellant argues, that Green's position with the APD criminalistics laboratory was in jeopardy, he could not have helped his cause by falsifying reports. See Id. at 43. Green knew that Brady would look over his notes and had access to the evidence he was testing. Id. Furthermore, Brady testified as to standard laboratory procedures and testified that Green's notes indicate he followed those procedures in testing the substance at issue in this case. See Manocchio v. Moran, 919 F.2d 770, 775 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 910, 111 S.Ct. 1695, 114 L.Ed.2d 89 (1991). 20 As to necessity, this requirement is usually met by the prosecution's either producing the declarant as a witness at trial or showing that the witness is unavailable to testify. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 65, 100 S.Ct. at 2538-39. Dan Green did not testify at appellant's trial, and the State concedes that it did not show Green to be unavailable. However, recent Supreme Court precedent indicates that the unavailability requirement announced in Ohio v. Roberts may be limited to its facts, where the prosecution seeks to introduce prior testimony. White v. Illinois, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 736, 741, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992). At any rate, the unavailability requirement does not apply in situations where cross examination of the declarant would be of little value to the defense. Reardon, 806 F.2d at 41 (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 65 n. 7, 100 S.Ct. at 2538 n. 7). This case fits into that category. See Manocchio, 919 F.2d at 774 (dealing with admissibility of autopsy report). The APD chemists test numerous suspected controlled substances. It is unlikely that a chemist would remember any particular piece of evidence he tested. Id. at 775; Reardon, 806 F.2d at 41. If Green had testified, he likely would have relied on his notes and on his knowledge of standard laboratory procedures in order to testify about the condition of the evidence when he received it and the steps he took in testing it. Furthermore, as the Second Circuit noted in Reardon, producing a police chemist as a witness rarely leads to any admissions which are helpful to the defense. Id. at 42. 21 The admission of Green's laboratory notes into evidence was proper under the Confrontation Clause.