The U.S. Supreme Court once again weighed whether lab technicians must testify as to the results of DNA tests they perform. However, the answer was anything but clear.
In the past few years, the Supreme Court twice ruled that DNA reports cannot be introduced on their own saying that the lab technicians who performed the DNA tests must testify so that their methods and conclusions are subject to cross-examination. However, Monday, the narrow majority upheld an Illinois rape conviction even though the DNA match was entered into evidence without any accompanying testimony from the technician. The five justices for the 
majority all agreed on the outcome of the case but could not agree on the legal rationale behind that decision, which resulted in four separate opinions being filed.
In the case, the defendant Sandy Williams was identified after a DNA report conducted by a private lab was sent back to the Illinois state lab and put through the computer by a state analyst. It was that state analyst who testified at trial that Williams was identified through a DNA match, not the technician at the private lab who conducted the actual DNA test. Williams appealed and the case reached the Supreme Court where the justices split into three different legal opinions.
Four justices, Justices Alito, Kennedy, Breyer and Chief Justice Roberts, ruled that the DNA results were never actually entered into evidence and therefore the private lab technician never needed to testify. The justices stated instead that the state was only offering an expert opinion on the computer DNA match.
Justice Thomas concurred with the majority decision but offered his own separate legal reasoning. Thomas stated that the report was not certified in a formal way like an affidavit or deposition and therefore need not be subject to cross-examination in the same way as formal statements.
The four dissenting justices, Justices Kagan, Scalia, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, lambasted the decision saying the majority “creates five votes to approve the admission of the [private lab] report, but not a single good explanation.” The dissent also pointed out that the same private lab used in Williams’ case had admitted to making errors in another case which implicated the wrong person.
Until this case the court had been on a course to set a clear standard with regard to lab technicians testifying as to their results, but now, as the dissent in this case pointed out “who knows what” will be the standard going forward.
Read the story on NPR here.