Plurality opinion on whether Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce an analyst’s forensic report through an expert witness; plurality holds in this case Clause did not preclude an expert’s testimony that defendant’s DNA profile matched a vaginal swab semen DNA profile produced by a Cellmark analyst who did not testify.
Criminal
Orr v. State, No. 45A03-1107-CR-308, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 18, 2012).
Evidence Rule 613(b) confers discretion to allow a prior inconsistent statement to be admitted before the witness has a chance to explain or deny or, in some circumstances, even when witness is not given any chance to explain or deny.
Whiting v. State, No. 38S05-1206-CR-345, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 19, 2012).
Procedural default loss of a juror-bias claim when the defendant fails to exhaust her peremptory challenges is not amenable to fundamental-error review.
Berry v. State, No. 49S04-1110-CR-611, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 20, 2012).
Affirms trial court’s rejection of the defendant’s “settled insanity” defense, since there was some evidence that the defendant’s behavior was the result of his voluntary abuse of alcohol.
Southern Union Co. v. United States, No. 11–94, __U.S.__ (June 21, 2012).
Apprendi v. New Jersey requires a jury resolution of facts on which imposition of a criminal fine rests.