999 Fifth Avenue, Suite 350, San Rafael, CA 94901

Call Today for Your Free Consultation
Call Us 415-729-7300

San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Case Law - Judicial Decision - Jenkins v. State

Posted on in

Recent Judicial Decisions - Case Law By Board Certified DUI Attorney Paul Burglin
Jenkins v. State
___So.3d ___ (2012 WL 4711432 (Miss.)

Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for possessing less than two grams of cocaine. His conviction was affirmed even though the analyst who performed the test and identified the substance did not testify. She was on indefinite medical leave with stage-four cancer so her supervisor/technical reviewer testified instead.

The surrogate witness performed “procedural checks" by reviewing all of the data submitted and the conclusions contained in the analyst’s report. Based on this review, he reached his own conclusion that the substance was cocaine. The certified report was signed by both the analyst and the testifying supervisor.

The Court held that this satisfied the Confrontation Clause and was allowed by Bullcoming . The salient point was that the supervisor was actively involved in the report’s production and had intimate knowledge of the analyses even though he did not perform the test first hand.

Back to Top