The Confrontation Clause and Forensic Autopsy Reports - A 'Testimonial

• Author: Marc D. Ginsberg
• Position: Assistant Professor of Law, The John Marshall Law School (Chicago)
• Pages: 117-171

The Confrontation Clause and Forensic Autopsy

Reports—A “Testimonial”

Marc D. Ginsberg∗

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ......................................................................119

II. Legal Issues Relating to the Forensic Autopsy Report ....122

A. Hearsay ....................................................................122

B. The Confrontation Clause ........................................126

1. Supreme Court Jurisprudence—Defining

“Testimonial” .....................................................126

a. Crawford v. Washington .............................127

b. Davis v. Washington ...................................129

c. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts ................130

d. Michigan v. Bryant......................................131

e. Bullcoming v. New Mexico .........................131

f. Williams v. Illinois ......................................132

III. Post-Crawford Jurisprudence from the Circuit Courts of

Appeals ............................................................................135

A. First Circuit ..............................................................135

1. United States v. De La Cruz ...............................135

2. Nardi v. Pepe .....................................................137

B. Second Circuit ..........................................................139

1. United States v. Feliz .........................................139

2. United States v. Burden ......................................139

3. Vega v. Walsh .....................................................140

4. United States v. James .......................................141

Copyright 2013, by MARC D. GINSBERG.

∗ Assistant Professor of Law, The John Marshall Law School (Chicago),

(9ginsberg@jmls. edu). B.A., Uni versity of Illino is-Chicago; M. A., Indiana

University; J.D., The John Marshall Law School (Chicago); LL.M. in Health Law,

DePaul University College of Law. The Author thanks Associate Dean Ralph

Ruebner for his suggestion that the opinion in People v. Leach, 980 N.E.2d 570

(Ill. 2012) was worthy of study and his encouragement in the preparation of this

paper. The Author thanks his wife, Janice Ginsberg, for her inspiration and

support. The Author also thanks his former research assistant, Laura Christie, and

his current research assistant, Rebecca Pierce, for their assistance in research,

proofreading, and citation checking.

118 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 74

C. Sixth Circuit .............................................................143

D. Ninth Circuit ............................................................144

E. Tenth Circuit ............................................................144

F. Eleventh Circuit .......................................................145

G. District of Columbia Circuit ....................................147

IV. Post-Crawford Jurisprudence from the States .................148

A. States Holding Forensic Autopsy Reports

to be Testimonial ......................................................148

1. Massachusetts ....................................................148

2. Michigan ............................................................149

3. Missouri .............................................................150

4. New Mexico .......................................................151

a. State v. Jaramillo ...........................................151

b. State v. Navarette ...........................................152

5. North Carolina ...................................................152

6. Oklahoma ...........................................................153

7. Texas ..................................................................154

a. Martinez v. State .............................................154

b. Wood v. State .................................................154

8. West Virginia .....................................................155

B. States Holding Forensic Autopsy Reports

to be Non-Testimonial .............................................156

1. Arizona ...............................................................156

2. California ...........................................................157

3. Florida ................................................................158

4. Illinois ................................................................158

a. People v. Leach ...........................................158

b. People v. Cortez ..........................................160

c. People v. Brewer .........................................160

5. Louisiana ............................................................161

6. New Jersey .........................................................161

7. Ohio ....................................................................162

8. South Carolina ...................................................163

C. “Hybrid” Jurisdictions .............................................163

V. The Verdict—Forensic Autopsy Reports Are

Testimonial ......................................................................166

VI. Conclusion .......................................................................170

2013] TESTIMONIAL AUTOPSY REPORTS 119

I. INTRODUCTION

It bears mentioning that the blanket prohibition on the

admission of autopsy reports urged by defendant could result

in practical difficulties for murder prosecutions. If, for

example, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy

passes away before a perpetrator is apprehended and tried,

barring the use in evidence of the autopsy report could, in

some situations, effectively amount to a statute of limitations

on murder, where none otherwise exists.1

The forensic autopsy report is an important component of a

criminal homicide prosecution.2 The report, which is used to

memorialize the cause3 and manner of death4 under the auspices of a

coroner’s or medical examiner’s office,5 constitutes a significant

phase of a death investigation that is used “to (hopefully) convict the

guilty and exonerate the innocent.”6

1. People v. Hall, 923 N.Y.S.2d 428, 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011).

2. Medicolegal autopsies are conducted to determine the cause of death;

assist with the determination of the manner of death as natural, suicide, homicide,

or accident; collect medical evidence that may be useful for public health or the

courts; and devel op informatio n that may be useful for reconstructi ng how the

person received a fatal injury. NAT’L RESEARCH COUNCIL, STRENGTHENING

FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES: A PATH FORWARD 248 (2009).

The autopsy is a post-mortem medical examination for studying the

pathologic changes present and determining the cause of death. The

autopsy includes three kinds of examinations: an inspection of the

external body; an examination and dissection of the internal organs and

vital structures; and a microscopic examination of selected tissues.

Cheryl M. Reichert & Virginia L. Kelly, Prognosis for the Autopsy, HEALTH AFF.,

May 1985, at 82, 82.

3. “The cause of death is the trauma, disease, or combination of conditions

that terminated the person’s life.” ANDRE A. MOENSSENS, BETTY LAYNE

DESPORTES & CARL N. EDWARDS, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL

CASES § 14.09, at 666 (6th ed. 2013).

4. Manner of death may be characterized as “natural, accident, suicide,

homicide, and undetermined.” Id. § 14.10, at 666.

5. For an e xcellent description of the offices of the coroner and medical

examiner, includi ng their roles and history, see general ly Randy Hanzlick & Debr a

Combs, Medical Examiner and Coroner Systems, 279 JAMA 870 (1998); Randy

Hanzlick, Medical Examiners, Coroners, and Public Health: A Review and

Update, 130 ARCHIVES PATHOL OGY & LABORATORY MED. 1274 (2006); Randy

Hanzlick, The Conversion of Coroner Systems to Medical Examiner Systems in the

United States: A Lull in the Action, 28 AM. J. FORENSIC MED. & PATHOLOGY 279

(2007).

6. MOENSSENS ET. AL., supra note 3, § 14.03, at 654. See also Reichart &

Kelly, supra note 2, at 85 (“The correlation of autopsy findings with criminal

investigations is an invaluable asset for a just society. Forensic autopsy findings

frequently implicate the guilty and vindicate the innocent.”). To demonstrate the