MBE Rules · Evidence
Forensic Reports and Confrontation
Melendez-Diaz / Bullcoming
The rule
Forensic lab certificates prepared for prosecution are testimonial; the analyst who performed or witnessed the test must testify — surrogate analysts and affidavits violate confrontation.
In plain English
Forensic reports created for use in court are considered testimonial evidence. This means that the analyst who conducted the tests must be available to testify in person, as using a surrogate or relying solely on written affidavits would violate the defendant's right to confront witnesses against them.
Worked example
In a criminal trial, the prosecution submits a forensic lab report indicating that the defendant's DNA was found at the crime scene. However, the analyst who conducted the DNA test is not present to testify, and the prosecution relies on a written affidavit from another analyst. The court finds this insufficient, ruling that the defendant's right to confront witnesses was violated.
Memory hook
Forensic reports need the analyst's face, not just their paper.
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where a lab report is admitted without the analyst's testimony, leading students to overlook the confrontation clause implications.
How examiners test it
Questions often test students on the admissibility of forensic evidence and the necessity of live testimony from the analyst involved in the testing process.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.