Even after the thrilling conclusion of this year’s Final Four, many military justice eyes remain fixed on Indianapolis.  As we’ve previously discussed, the Supremes asked the Indiana Solicitor General to file a response to the cert petition in Pendergrass v. Indiana, No. 09-866.  (BTW, the Indiana Solicitor General is named Thomas W. Fisher.  Pendergrass’s lead counsel is Stanford Law Professor Jeffrey L. Fisher.  Any relation?)  The QP in Pendergrass implicates one of the issues that remains under consideration in Blazier:  “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.” 

According to the Supremes’ web site, Indiana’s response was due yesterday.  But we understand from a friend o’ CAAFlog that Indiana sought and received an extension until 9 May.  So, like Vladimir and Estragon, we’ll continue to wait.

Comments are closed.