Old news, but last week the Supreme Court granted cert. in a front-end case. The name of the case is Williams v. Illinois. The issue is similar to the one that was just decided in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, but with a twist. In Bullcoming, the issue was whether one expert could testify about the results of another expert. The Court said that that is improper under the Confrontation Clause. The issue in the new case is whether another expert can offer an independent opinion relying upon the results of a non-testifying expert (at least that appears to be the issue based on the lower court's decision). The actual statement of the issue from the cert. petition is:
Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts, violates the Confrontation Clause.
Seems kind of like a sleight of hand to me. It still allows the non-testifying expert's testimony into evidence without the ability to confront the expert. But, in Bullcoming, Sotomayor seemed to suggest that this may not represent a Confrontation Clause violation. She stated, "We would face a different question if asked to determine the constitutionality of allowing an expert witness to discuss others’ testimonial statements if the testimonial statements were not themselves admitted as evidence." I guess now they are facing it.
I will, eventually, update the Supreme Court Cases page. That's going to take some time. I hope to get to it before the end of the summer.