Opinion ID: 695539
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: PharmChem Urinalysis Report

Text: 27 McCormick complains that his right of confrontation was violated when he challenged the reliability of the PharmChem urinalysis test results but was not permitted to cross-examine the laboratory technicians who performed those tests. In particular, McCormick contends that he offered a reasonable explanation how his specimen could have tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines without his having ingested those narcotics; and that his right of confrontation was infringed when he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the technicians regarding his theory. We are not convinced, however, that under the totality of the circumstances McCormick's interest in confronting those witnesses is sufficient to overcome the government's good cause for denying confrontation. 28
29 The laboratory results were obviously important to the district court's finding that the releasee possessed a controlled substance: McCormick denied using narcotics, and the PharmChem urinalysis report is the most reliable evidence that, to the contrary, he did use drugs. 22 The significance of those test results is magnified further by the fact that a finding of McCormick's use and possession of narcotics triggered application of the mandatory minimum sentence specified in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(g). 23 30 Still, we find minimal McCormick's interest in confronting the technicians who conducted the tests. In United States v. Pierre, 24 Judge Easterbrook recently reasoned in another context, but in words equally applicable here: 31 What was the technician going to say on the stand? One vial of urine looks like another; the technicians would not have remembered what they did with [the releasee's] specimens and therefore would have described their normal procedures, and the judge would not have been enlightened. 25 32 Continuing, Judge Easterbrook noted that [a] court cannot resolve scientific controversies by looking witnesses in the eye; the question is not whether a technician believes the tests accurate but whether they are accurate. 26 Furthermore, [t]o find out whether tests are accurate, one uses the methods of science. 27 It follows, therefore, that a releasee's interest in cross-examining a laboratory technician regarding a scientific fact is less than would be his interest, for example, in confronting a hearsay declarant regarding what that declarant may have seen. The truth of the former can be verified through methods of science; the truth of the latter can best be verified through the rigor of cross-examination, conducted under the circumspect eye of the district court. As McCormick is essentially contesting an issue of science, i.e., whether a certain medication can produce a specific result during laboratory testing, his interest in confronting the technicians who conducted the tests is not substantial. 33 Moreover, denying McCormick the right to cross-examine the laboratory technicians did not significantly deny him the opportunity to impeach or refute the government's evidence of his possession. Innumerable avenues were available to McCormick to refute the government's proof; he merely failed to pursue them. For example, had McCormick wanted to question the technicians who performed the analyses, or even Director Fretthold, he could have sought a subpoena ordering their appearance. 28 But this he did not do. McCormick could also have requested that his specimen be retested by PharmChem or another laboratory. 29 But this he did not do. He could have sought to obtain evidence impugning the reliability of the laboratory or its testing methods. 30 But this he did not do. Perhaps the avenue most likely to help the argument he pursued during the revocation hearing, McCormick could have introduced evidence to support his unsupported conclusionary contention that the presence of Advil, Tylenol, or Ventolin in his system could cause his specimen to test positive for the presence of amphetamines and methamphetamines. 31 But this too he did not do. In sum, McCormick had available a host of alternative ways to challenge the hearsay in the PharmChem urinalysis report, but he either did not seek or could not find the evidence to support those alternatives. In any event, however, the record makes clear that McCormick was not denied in any manner whatsoever the opportunity to rebut with his own proof the government's evidence of his possession and use of illegal narcotics. 34 This fact makes the instant case distinguishable from United States v. Martin, 32 another case in which a defendant argued that the admission into evidence of a PharmChem urinalysis report violated his right of confrontation. In that case, the Ninth Circuit found that a releasee was given virtually no opportunity to refute urinalysis results, as the government proffered no evidence regarding either the particular tests employed on the specimens or PharmChem's general testing and handling procedures. Furthermore, the district court denied without explanation the defendant's request to allow an independent retesting of his specimens. Here, in stark contrast to the facts of Martin, the government offered the affidavit of Director Fretthold describing in detail PharmChem's general testing procedures and the results of the particular analyses conducted on McCormick's specimen, specifically refuting McCormick's allegation that a positive result could be produced by taking another medication. 33 More important, McCormick, unlike the defendant in Martin, was not refused any request to obtain evidence to refute the government's case--he simply made no effort to obtain such potentially exculpatory proof. 34 And, harking once more to Judge Easterbrook, we hear: Judges rely on the self-interest of the parties to flag declarants to be unreliable, and they rely on their own skills to get at the truth. 35 35
36 The reliability of the hearsay is an important consideration in determining whether sufficient good cause exists to forego confrontation. 36 We, like other courts, have consistently recognized that urinalysis reports bear substantial indicia of reliability, 37 as they  'are the regular reports of a company whose business it is to conduct such tests, and which expects its clients to act on the basis of its reports.'  38 Still, they are not so inherently reliable as to be automatically admissible in any revocation hearing. 39 37 In this case, however, the government proffered significant evidence demonstrating that the information reported in this particular PharmChem urinalysis report is extremely reliable. Officer Velasquez testified to his extensive training in obtaining urine specimens. 40 He described, step-by-step, the specimen's unbroken chain of custody, starting with McCormick and continuing until the specimen was mailed to PharmChem. 38 Director Fretthold picked up the story from there. In his affidavit, he described PharmChem's general procedures for receiving specimens through the mail and then ensuring the integrity of those specimens throughout the entire testing process. 41 He further explained, in detail, PharmChem's experience, its certifications, the various testing procedures that it employs, the reliability of those procedures, and the company's quality control measures. Next he discussed the records pertinent to McCormick's specimen. He stated that PharmChem's records indicate that the specimen had been tested using standard PharmChem procedures; that testing detected the presence of amphetamine; and that, as per PharmChem's standard procedures, the positive specimen was retested using a second methodology, which additional test confirmed the presence of amphetamine and methamphetamine. 39 Officer Velasquez' testimony and Director Fretthold's affidavit establish that this particular urinalysis report provided extremely reliable information regarding McCormick's possession of illegal narcotics. We note too that requiring laboratory technicians to appear in person at McCormick's parole revocation hearing would have incurred some difficulty and expense. 42 40 Substantial evidence enhanced the reliability of the information contained in the PharmChem urinalysis report. We cannot fathom what additional, enlightening information the district court could have gleaned had McCormick been permitted to cross-examine the laboratory technicians. In light of the at-best marginal benefit to be gained by requiring those technicians to submit to cross-examination, the significant number of available but unavailed options to confront the urinalysis report, the reliability of this particular urinalysis report, and the difficulty and cost associated with requiring those technicians to appear at the hearing, we conclude that the record supports an implicit finding by the district court that the government showed good cause for denying McCormick's right to confront the laboratory technicians. 41