Opinion ID: 1637413
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation

Text: ¶ 22. Deeds also claims that, because the State never identified the person who drew his blood, and because he was consequently unable to cross-examine that individual, his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated. ¶ 23. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, in part, that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amend. VI. [8] Officer Gibbs testified that he personally observed the attending nurse draw blood from Deeds and label the sample and that he then took the sample from the nurse. Subsequently, the blood sample was delivered to the Mississippi Crime Laboratory and tested by J.C. Smiley. Both Officer Gibbs and Smiley testified at trial and were subject to cross-examination. Neither the procedure used to draw Deeds's blood, nor the physical blood specimen itself, are statements, nor do they constitute nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion. Contrary to the defendant's claims, the unidentified nurse was not a witness against Deeds. ¶ 24. The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), found certificates of analysis of drug evidence introduced in lieu of live witnesses to be inadmissible. However, in addressing the concerns of the dissent, the Melendez-Diaz Court was clear that it does not require that anyone whose testimony may be relevant in establishing the chain of custody, authenticity of the sample, or accuracy of the testing device, must appear in person or as part of the prosecution's case. 129 S.Ct. at 2532 n. 1. Rather, `gaps in the chain [of custody] normally go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.' Id. (quoting U.S. v. Lott, 854 F.2d 244, 250 (7th Cir.1988)). It is up to the prosecution to decide what steps in the chain of custody are so crucial as to require evidence; but what testimony is introduced must (if the defendant objects) be introduced live. Id. (emphasis in original). ¶ 25. We find that the admission of the results of the blood test did not violate Deeds's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses testifying against him.