I highly recommend Major Daniel Froehlich’s article, The Impact of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts on Admissibility of Forensic Test Results at Courts-Martial, Army Law., Feb. 2010, at 24, available here. It’s an outstanding piece of scholarship that will be useful to those of us litigating Melendez-Diaz issues. (That said, I certainly don’t agree with everything in the article, but MAJ Froehlich does an outstanding job of supporting his contentions and advancing them is a thoughtful manner. And I agree with far more of his points than I disagree with, while completely respecting his positions and scholarship on those areas where I disagree.)
Let me add one datapoint that arose after the article was drafted. The article discusses–critically (a point on which I very much agree with the article)–the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Pendergrass v. State, 913 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. 2009). A legal all-star team — including Jeffrey Fisher (who argued Crawford), Pamela Karlan, Tom Goldstein, and Amy Howe — filed this cert petition seeking SCOTUS review of the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion. Here’s the QP: “Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements.” When the cert petition was filed, the State of Indiana waived its right to file a response. On 10 March, the Supremes asked Indiana to file a response. If cert is granted, Pendergrass should not only clarify issues left unresolved by Melendez-Diaz, but also address the first issue on which CAAF ordered additional briefing in Blazier.