Court Opinion

ID: 9839144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-11 20:16:22.192772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:27.950616
License: Public Domain

Rule 574. Forensic Laboratory Report; Certification In Lieu of Expert Testimony.

      [(A)]fglIn any trial, the attorney for the Commonwealth may seek to offer into
             evidence a forensic laboratory report supported by a certification, as
              provided in [ paragraph ( E)] subdivision (e), in lieu of testimony by the
              person who performed the analysis or examination that is the subject of the
              report.

      [(B)]LbJNotice.

            (1)    If the attorney for the Commonwealth intends to offer the forensic
                   laboratory report and accompanying certification as provided in
                   [paragraph (A)] subdivision (a) as evidence at trial, the attorney for
                   the Commonwealth shall file and serve, as provided in Rule 576,
                   upon the defendant's attorney or, if unrepresented, the defendant a
                   written notice of that fact at the time of the disclosure of the report
                   but no later than 20 days prior to the start of trial.

            (2)    The notice shall include astatement informing the defendant that, as
                   provided in [ paragraph (C)(3)] subdivision (c)(3), if no written
                   demand for testimony by the person who performed the analysis or
                   examination that is the subject of the forensic laboratory report is
                   made within 10 days of the service of the notice, the forensic
                   laboratory report and accompanying certification are admissible in
                   evidence without the person who performed the analysis or
                   examination testifying.

            (3)    Except as provided in [    paragraph (C)] subdivision (    c), the
                   laboratory report and accompanying certification are admissible in
                   evidence to the same effect as if the person who performed the
                   analysis or examination had personally testified.

     [(C)](c)Demand_

            (1)    Within 10 days of service of the notice provided in [paragraph ( B)]
                   subdivision ( b), the defendant's attorney, or if unrepresented, the
                   defendant may file and serve, as provided in Rule 576, upon the
                   attorney for the Commonwealth awritten demand for the person who
                   performed the analysis or examination that is the subject of the
                   forensic laboratory report to testify at trial.

            (2)    If awritten demand is filed and served, the forensic laboratory report
                   and accompanying certification are not admissible under [  paragraph
                    (13)(3)] subdivision ( b)(3) unless the person who performed the
                    analysis or examination testifies.

             (3)    If no demand for live testimony regarding the forensic laboratory
                    report and accompanying certification is filed and served within the
                    time allowed by this section, the forensic laboratory report and
                    accompanying certification are admissible in evidence without the
                    person who performed the analysis or examination testifying.

      [(D)](d)Extension. For cause shown, the judge may.

                    extend the time period for filing the notice or for filinq the demand
                    for live testimony[J1 or

             M      [may] grant acontinuance of the trial.

      [(E)](e)Certification.

             The person who performed the analysis or examination that is the subject
             of the forensic laboratory report shall complete a certification in which the
             person shall state:

             (1)    the education, training, and experience that qualify him or her to
                    perform the analysis or examination;

             (2)    the entity by which he or she is employed and adescription of his or
                    her regular duties;

             (3)    the name and location of the laboratory where the analysis or
                    examination was performed;

             (4)   any state, national, or international accreditations of the laboratory at
                   which the analysis or examination was performed; [     and]

            (5)    that the analysis or examination was performed under industry-
                   approved procedures or standardsi and

                   the report accurately reflects the findings and opinions of the person
                   who performed the analysis or examination regarding the results of
                   the analysis or examination.

Comment: This rule was adopted in 2014 to address the issues raised by the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, [
                                                            129 U.S. 2527] 557 U.S.

                                           2
305 (2009), that held that the 6th Amendment confrontation right precluded presentation
of laboratory reports without a live witness testifying in the trial. In Melendez-Diaz, the
U.S. Supreme Court noted with approval the use of " notice and demand" procedures as
a means of permitting routine laboratory reports to be admitted without the expense of
supporting the admission by live expert testimony while protecting a defendant's
confrontation rights.

        This rule provides a " notice and demand" procedure for Pennsylvania. Under the
rule, the attorney for the Commonwealth may seek to admit aforensic laboratory report
as evidence without the testimony of the analyst who performed the testing that was the
subject of the report if notice requirements are met and no demand for the presence of
the analyst is made. If the defendant makes such a demand, the analyst would be
required to testify before the report could be admitted into evidence.

       Nothing in this rule is intended to preclude astipulation agreed to by the parties for
the admission of the laboratory report without the analyst's presence.

      Nothing in the rule would prevent further stipulation by the parties in light of the
admission of the report and certification.

       Nothing in this rule is intended to change the requirement for the provision of
discovery under Rule 573.

        Under [paragraph ( D)] subdivision (d), the trial judge may permit filing of the
notice or demand after the time period required in the rule if the party seeking the late
filing shows cause for the delay. In the situation where the judge permits the late filing of
the notice, the defendant still has 10 days in which to make the demand for the live
testimony of the analyst. This may necessitate acontinuance of the trial.

       The certification in [
                            paragraph ( E)] subdivision (e) does not require adescription
of the actual tests performed for the analysis. This information more properly belongs in
the report itself. Since one of the goals of this rule is to permit the defendant to make an
informed decision regarding whether to demand the live testimony of the analyst, the
report should provide information sufficient to describe the methodology by which the
results were determined.

         For purposes of this rule, a laboratory is "accredited" when its management,
personnel, quality system, operational and technical procedures, equipment, and physical
facilities meet [  standards established by a recognized state, national, or
international accrediting organization such as the American Society of Crime
Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accrediting Board (ASCLD/LAB) or Forensic
Quality Services -International ( FQS-1)]the ISO/IEC 17025 standard in the forensic
field of testing as determined by an International Laboratory Accreditation

                                             3
Cooperation recoqnized accreditation orqanization that has been evaluated to meet
the ISO/IEC 17011 standard and that has expertise in the forensic laboratory
accreditation field.

[NOTE: New Rule 574 adopted February 19, 2014, effective April 1, 2014.

Committee Explanatory Reports:

       Final Report explaining new Rule 574 providing for notice and demand
procedures regarding forensic laboratory reports published with the Court's Order
at 44 Pa.B. 1311 ( March 8, 2014).]

                                       4