Here’s a link to today’s CAAF opinion du jour: United States v. Harcrow, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0135/MC (C.A.A.F. Mar. 13, 2008).

Here is Judge Erdmann’s synopsis of his majority opinion:

We granted review of this case to consider whether the lower court erred by finding that the state forensic laboratory reports were nontestimonial hearsay under Crawford. 65 M.J. 284 (C.A.A.F. 2007). We hold that the laboratory reports in this case were testimonial evidence. Applying a plain error analysis, we conclude that the error was plain and obvious but the admission of this evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore did not violate a substantial right. See Article 59(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 859(a) (2000); United States v. Brewster, 61 M.J. 425, 432 (C.A.A.F. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the findings of guilty and the sentence as set out in the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

One Response to “CAAF addresses another Crawford issue in Harcrow”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Umm, what is this Whorton v. Brockting case the court speaks of?