CAAF granted review today in United States v. Skrede, No. 10-6002/AF, on these two issues:

I.  Whether the military judge abused her discretion by refusing to admit drug testing reports into evidence over a defense confrontation clause objection where: (1) the reports contained hanwritten results reflecting drug use and certifications that “the laboratory results indicated on this form were correctly determined by proper laboratory procedures, and they are correctly annotated”; (2) the government did not produce in court the declarants whose statements are included in the drug testing reports; and (3) the defense had had no previous opportunity to confront the declarants.

II.  Whether the military judge abused her discretion by refusing to admit a drug testing report into evidence over a defense confrontation clause objection where:  (1) the sample that was the subject of the report was obtained at law enforcement behest; (2) the government did not produce in court the declarants whose statements are included in the drug testing report; and (3) the defense had had no previous opportunity to confront the declarants.

As I was taught today, because Skrede is a review of an Article 62 appeal, CAAF’s rules provide that no briefs will be filed.  AFCCA’s unpublished decision in the case is available here.  (CAAF also summarily reversed AFCCA’s Article 62 appeal decision in Anderson today, relying on United States v. Bradford, 68 M.J. 371 (C.A.A.F. 2010).)

[Disclosure:  I’m one of the appellate defense counsel in all of the cases mentioned above, except for Melendez-Diaz.]

2 Responses to “CAAF grants review of another case presenting Melendez-Diaz issues”

  1. umm says:

    didn’t read this closely but is the CCA trying to say drug reports don’t need in-court testimony despite Melendez? Really?

  2. Anonymous says:

    That is not what the CCA said.