Bullcoming v. New Mexico - Oral Argument - March 02, 2011 Page 2

Bullcoming v. New Mexico

Media for Bullcoming v. New Mexico

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 23, 2011 in Bullcoming v. New Mexico

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 02, 2011 in Bullcoming v. New Mexico

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

Do you have to have both of them testify?

Jeffrey L. Fisher:

--Only if the State wants to present statements from them both.

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

No, they want to--

Jeffrey L. Fisher:

They both--

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

--They want to present the results of the blood analysis--

Jeffrey L. Fisher:

--I think--

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

--the numbers the machine spits out.

Jeffrey L. Fisher:

--I think in that scenario, if both people were there for the whole thing, the State could have either one of them testify.

What the State couldn't do--

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

Even though one--

Jeffrey L. Fisher:

--and this is the rule--

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

--Even though one didn't do it?

Even though the question is going to be, did you put the aluminum on and crimp it, and the answer is going to be, no, Joe did it; he sits right next to me?

Jeffrey L. Fisher:

--That's right.

The Confrontation Clause is a purely procedural right, Mr. Chief Justice.

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

I'm sorry.

That's right.

Does -- do they both have to testify, then, or not?

Jeffrey L. Fisher:

They do not have to.

The Confrontation Clause is a purely procedural right.

It all depends on what -- whose statements the State wants to introduce.

So, if the State is satisfied to prove its case by having somebody testify, saying, I watched the thing go into the machine and I watched this result come out and I saw that it wasn't tampered with and it was Mr. Bullcoming's sample, then that would be fine.

And in fact, what some labs do--

Anthony M. Kennedy:

I -- I don't understand that.

How is that any different than the supervisor of the lab saying, I know what these people do, I -- I watch them on a day-to-day basis, and they perform their work correctly?

Jeffrey L. Fisher:

--Again, the question, Justice Kennedy, is not who the State has to bring in.

The question is whose statements the State wants to introduce.

Here, the State wanted to introduce Mr. Caylor's statements, and so it therefore needs to--

Anthony M. Kennedy:

What the State wanted to introduce is the result of the exam, and the Chief Justice gives you the hypothetical.

Say, two people are necessary for the exam.