U.S.Sup.Ct.
10-8505
At petitioners bench trial for rape, Sandra Lambatos, a forensic specialist at the Illinois State Police lab, testified that she matched a DNA profile produced by an outside laboratory, Cellmark, to a profile the state lab produced using a sample of petitioners blood. She testified that Cellmark was an accredited laboratory and that business records showed that vaginal swabs taken from the victim, L. J., were sent to Cellmark and returned. She offered no other statement for the purpose of identifying the sample used for Cellmarks profile or establishing how Cellmark handled or tested the sample. Nor did she vouch for the accuracy of Cellmarks profile. The defense moved to exclude, on Confrontation Clause grounds, Lambatos testimony insofar as it implicated events at Cellmark, but the prosecution said that petitioners confrontation rights were satisfied because he had the opportunity to cross-examine the expert who had testified as to the match. The prosecutor argued that Illinois Rule of Evidence 703 permitted an expert to disclose facts on which the experts opinion is based even if the expert is not competent to testify to those underlying facts, and that any deficiency went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The trial court admitted the evidence and found petitioner guilty. Both the Illinois Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that Lambatos testimony did not violate petitioners confrontation rights because Cellmarks report was not offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
