In trial, there may be a Confrontation Clause or hearsay challenge to the DNA test results under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Cases addressing those issues are listed below:

1. State v. Forte, North Carolina Supreme Court, No. 20A04, 5-5-06, the defendant's right of confrontation was not violated by the admission of state lab DNA reports prepared by an analyst who did not testify and was unavailable for cross-examination, because the reports were not testimonial statements that were inadmissible under Crawford. The reports were purely ministerial observations and were property admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Forte.PDF
2. Roberts v. U.S., District of Columbia CA, No. 03-CF-853, 2-15-07, the defendant contended, for the first time on appeal, that his confrontation rights were violated when a DNA expert, who had not done the original analysis of the DNA, testified and the FBI scientists, who did the testing, did not testify. Applying the plain error standard of review, the court found that any limitation on the defendant’s ability to cross-examine those who analyzed the DNA evidence connecting him with the crime did not justify reversal. Roberts.PDF
3. People v. Geier, Supreme Court of California, No. S050082, 7-2-07, the report of DNA test results was not “testimonial.” Thus, testimony about the report by an expert who did not perform the test was admissible without violating the Confrontation Clause. Geier.PDF
4. State v. Crager, Supreme Court of Ohio, No. 2006-0294 & No. 2006-0298, 12-27-07, the court determined that the DNA reports fell under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Admission of the DNA reports without the testimony of the analyst who ran the tests did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights because the reports were non-testimonial. Crager.PDF
5. People v. Rawlins, Court of Appeals of New York, N.Y. Slip Op. 01420, 2-19-08, a DNA report from an independent private laboratory, containing results of DNA testing conducted on samples taken from a victim’s rape kit, was not testimonial, and thus could be admitted without violating the defendant's Confrontation Clause rights. Rawlins.PDF
6. Campos v. State, Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.) No. 14-07-00014-CR, 5-27-08, the court first found that the DNA report was non-testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes and then concluded that the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the DNA expert who did testify regarding her opinions about the report. Campo.PDF
7. Pendergrass v. Indiana, Court of Appeals of Indiana, No. 71A03-0712-CR-588, 7-8-08, the trial court properly admitted the State’s Exhibits concerning DNA analysis and the subsequent test results without the testimony of the laboratory technician who performed the actual testing. The defendant’s confrontational rights pursuant to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution were not compromised when he was denied the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the laboratory technician who performed the DNA analysis. Pendergrass.PDF
8. People v. Michael Brown, Supreme Court, Queens County, New York, 7-14-08, the DNA lab technicians' notes and records were not testimonial, and thus their admission as business records, without the technicians' testimony, did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Brown.PDF
9. US v. Richardson, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, No. 07-2162, 8-12-08, allowing expert testimony from a scientist other than the one who performed the DNA tests, was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause or the Federal Rules of Evidence. Richardson.PDF
10. People v. Williams, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division, No. 01 CR 10786, 8-27-08, the report on DNA test results was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted; rather, it was offered to provide a basis for the DNA expert’s opinion, so admission of the report was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause. Williams.PDF