Opinion ID: 1922322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the admission of the autopsy report in the instant case violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation?

Text: Rollins primarily contends that the admission of Ms. Ebberts's autopsy report, without the testimony of the doctor who prepared the report, violated his constitutional right to be confronted with witnesses against him under the Confrontation Clause, Amendment VI of the Constitution of the United States and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The seminal case on this issue is Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Petitioner contends that the Crawford decision changed the law regarding the Confrontation Clause, and thus argues that the distinction between fact and opinion in an autopsy report is no longer a factor in determining whether the admission of an autopsy report  absent the testimony of the person who prepared the report  violates an accused's right to confrontation. [6]