Does Bullcoming recognize the fallibility of forensic science
The Supreme Court decided today a case that is being is widely praised by criminal defense attorneys. The decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico held that blood test results are not admissible without the testimony of analyst that conducted the test. Bullcoming was involved in a traffic accident and suspected of being intoxicated. When he refused a breath test, they obtained a warrant and took a blood sample. That sample was tested at the State lab by gas chromatography, and the results used to prosecute him for driving while intoxicated.
When it came time for trial the State announced that the analyst who did the testing was not available because he had been placed on unpaid leave. A supervisor was allowed to testify in his place. The issue before the court was whether Melendez-Diaz would apply to testimony about such reports. The New Mexico courts held the report was testimonial, and therefore the confrontation clause applied. However, they held the analyst was nothing more than a "scrivener" who wrote down the results. They also held the supervisor's testimony was sufficient because he testify about the machine and its operation.
A majority of the Court - led by Justice Ginsburg - held the supervisor's testimony was not an adequate substitute for the analyst who actually performed the test. In doing so, they recognized that scientific testing involves more than simply reading the results of a machine. The results are only as good as the data going, and the process followed. That may not be revealed in the raw data. The court noted several studies that show the majority of errors in testing are the result of human error.
The court definitely got this one right. If the results of a scientific test are going to be used to take away someone's freedom, they need to be scrutinized. That can only be done by competent counsel, who knows the questions to ask and what to look for. A supervisor cannot answer those questions, and cannot ferret out problems simply by looking at the results.
Perhaps the court's decision is based on a recognition that forensic science is not as infallible as the scientists would like to believe. There certainly has been increasing recognition of the problems in this area. As long as forensic science is used in criminal trials it must be subjected to strict scrutiny. This opinion is good step toward that.