Court Opinion

ID: 9780802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 02:55:36.042532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:14.040036
License: Public Domain

Nahmias, Justice,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion in full but add this cautionary note. The forensic expert’s testimony in these cases did not violate the Confrontation Clause, as we understand the holdings, and the signals offered in dicta and separate opinions, of the Supreme Court of the United States applying that constitutional provision. However, that Court’s doctrine in this area has been recast and refined significantly in the few years since Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (124 SC 1354, 158 LE2d 177) (2004), brought the focus back to “[testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial,” id. at 59 — and further refinements are coming. See, e.g., Williams v. Illinois, No. 10-8505 (U. S., argued Dec. 6, 2011) (presenting the question “[wjhether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts, violates the Confrontation Clause”). Consequently, courts should not simply assume that prior Georgia appellate decisions in this area remain good law, without careful consideration of any subsequently decided United States Supreme Court cases that may be on point.
*49Decided May 7, 2012.
Bruce S. Harvey, J. Scott Key, Margaret E. Flynt, for appellant (case no. S11G1880).
J. Scott Key, Margaret E. Flynt, Lee Sexton, for appellant (case no. S11G1881).
Scott L. Ballard, District Attorney, Robert W. Smith, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.