The Supreme Court's Confrontation With Forensic Evidence: Williams v. Illinois

On June 18, 2012, the Supreme Court came down with a fractured 5-4 decision disrupting long-standing 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause precedent as it applies to forensic evidence. Williams v. Illinois, No. 10-8505 (June 18, 2012).

The issue before the Court arose out of a rape prosecution in Chicago. Illinois police recovered the perpetrator's DNA sample from the victim and sent the sample to a private lab in Maryland. When the DNA profile report was returned, Illinois police ran it through their database in Illinois and found a match, Sandy Williams. During Williams' trial, the Maryland lab report was not introduced into evidence and the Maryland laboratory technicians did not testify. Prosecutors, however, presented an expert from the Illinois state lab, who testified that it was her opinion that a DNA profile generated from Williams' sample matched the DNA profile developed by the Maryland lab. Williams was convicted.

Later, Williams claimed that the prosecution's failure to offer the Maryland laboratory technician for him to cross-examine was a violation of his right to confrontation. The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed and upheld his conviction.

The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause guarantees the accused the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." In 2004, the Supreme Court held in Crawford v. Washington, that the Clause prohibits prosecutors from introducing out-of-court testimonial statements without putting the declarant on the stand. 541 U.S. 36 (2004). In 2009, in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Court re-affirmed that decision, holding that forensic reports that certify incriminating results are testimonial. 557 U.S. 305 (2009). Most recently, in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, the Court made clear that when the prosecution introduces forensic reports, it must call the actual author of the report to the stand, rather than a supervisor or other surrogate witness. 564 U.S. __ (2011).

Bullcoming, however, left open the question whether prosecutors can introduce an analyst's testimonial forensic report through a testifying expert witness. Williams became the perfect opportunity for the Court to determine that issue.

Justice Alito, writing the plurality opinion, ruled that Williams did not have a right to confront the DNA report's creator because the DNA report was not testimonial. The four plurality justices reasoned that the report was not testimonial because it was the expert's testimony, rather than the...