Defendant’s consent to the swab of his cheek for DNA was voluntary, so the swab did not violate the Fourth Amendment; further, a Pirtle advisement was not warranted before the swab was taken.
Criminal
Cartwright v. State, No. 82A01-1005-CR-214, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2011)
Finds the State’s four race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenge to only African-American venireperson to have been pretextual because the trial judge made no finding which of the four reasons it relied on to reject the Batson challenge and because the State failed to “develop anything beyond the most superficial of records regarding its reasons.”
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, No. 09–10876, __ U.S. __ (June 23, 2011)
The “Confrontation Clause [does not] permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification—made for the purpose of proving a particular fact—through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification. We hold that surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement. The accused’s right is to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.”
Baker v. State, No. 17S04-1009-CR-500, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)
When, as in this child molesting case, “evidence is presented of a greater number of separate criminal offenses than the defendant is charged with,” “the State may in its discretion designate a specific act (or acts) on which it relies to prove a particular charge,” but “if the State decides not to so designate, then the jurors should be instructed that in order to convict the defendant they must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or acts or that the defendant committed all of the acts described by the victim and included within the time period charged.”
In Re Subpoena to Crisis Connection, Inc., No. 19S05-1012-CR-678, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)
“[T]he three-step test for the discoverability of information outlined in State v. Cline (In re WTHR-TV) . . . is not reached when information is protected by an unqualified privilege unless a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights would be violated by enforcing the privilege.” Here, defendant had no Due Process or Sixth Amendment right to avoid the statutory victim advocate privilege, which prevented discovery of the records of a nongovernmental counseling agency.