☢ test - Í

Freeman v. State, 329 Ga.App. 429, 765 S.E.2d 631 (October 30, 2014). Cocaine trafficking conviction reversed; trial court erred by allowing officer to testify to statements of confidential informant, incriminating defendant, in violation of his Confrontation Rights. “Quite simply, a confidential informant's ‘statements to a law enforcement officer are clearly testimonial’ United States v. Lopez–Medina, 596 F3d 716, 730(II)(A)(1) (10 th Cir., 2010); see United States v. Holmes, 620 F3d 836, 841(II) (8 th Cir., 2010) (holding that statements made by a CI to officer that led to officer's further investigation of defendant clearly fall within the class of statements considered testimonial); United States v. Cromer, 389 F3d 662, 675(II)(A) (6 th Cir., 2004) (same). because ‘[t]ips provided by confidential informants are knowingly and purposely made to authorities, accuse someone of a crime, and often are used against the accused at trial.’ Cromer, 389 F3d at 675(II)(A). And the very fact that the informant is confidential— i.e., that his or her identity is not disclosed— ‘heightens the dangers involved in allowing a declarant to bear testimony without confrontation.’ Id. Indeed, permitting anonymous accusations of crime without ‘any opportunity for cross-examination would make a mockery of the Confrontation Clause.’ Id. ” “Furthermore, we disagree with the trial court's assertion that Freeman opened the door to the admission of this evidence during his aggressive cross-examination of the lead officer as to why Freeman was targeted when there were at least four other people at the residence at the time the search warrant was executed. Defense counsel's decision to waive a defendant's confrontation rights must be done ‘intentionally and for valid, tactical purposes in order to satisfy the requirement that the waiver of a constitutional right must be clear and intentional.’ Holmes, 620 F3d at 843. But here, there was no such waiver. In fact, the record shows that Freeman's counsel explicitly objected to the admission of the CI's statements, as well as the trial court's ruling that he opened the door to such statements. And although courts at times allow ‘the use of otherwise inadmissible evidence, including hearsay statements, to clarify, rebut, or complete an issue opened up by defense counsel on cross-examination,’ United States v. Jumping Eagle, 515 F3d 794, 801(II)(B) (8th Cir.2008) (punctuation omitted), as the Supreme Court of the United States has explained, ‘[w]here testimonial statements are involved, we do not think the Framers meant to leave the Sixth Amendment's protection to the vagaries of the rules of evidence....’ Crawford, 541 U.S. at 61(V)(A).” Error wasn’t harmless, given that “[t]he statement that he purchased crack cocaine from ‘Trace’ was arguably the only direct or non-circumstantial evidence that Freeman was involved in the illegal drug activity occurring at the Thoms Drive residence.” 5. DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS Rivers v. State, 296 Ga. 396, 768 S.E.2d 486 (January 20, 2015). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed; no Confrontation Clause violation where defendant’s own statements at preliminary hearing were used against him at trial, despite lack of transcript of that hearing. “The constitutional right to confront witnesses has no application where what is offered against a criminal defendant is the defendant's own statement and he has the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witness through whom this statement is presented. See U.S. Const. Amend. VI (giving accused the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him).” 6. EXPERT WITNESSES See also subheading BUSINESS RECORDS, above Crosby v. State, 319 Ga.App. 459, 735 S.E.2d 588 (December 17, 2012). Physical precedent only. Burglary and related convictions affirmed; testimony of GBI crime lab witness was properly admitted: “during Crosby's trial, a GBI forensic biologist testified regarding her review of the testing of the DNA samples collected from the scene of the burglary and her own testing of the DNA samples obtained from Crosby after he was arrested. Specifically, the GBI biologist explained that the swab samples collected from the screwdriver and the broken window were initially tested by another GBI technician to confirm that the substance found on them was blood. And afterward, the samples were sent to a laboratory in Utah, which isolated the DNA from the blood and developed a DNA profile. Subsequently, the Utah lab returned the evidence and its analysis to the GBI, and the GBI biologist then reviewed the testing procedures employed, as well as the results, and uploaded the information into CODIS. The biologist further testified that once DNA samples were obtained from Crosby, she personally tested those samples and determined that they matched the DNA collected from the blood on the screwdriver and the victim's bedroom window.” No Confrontation violation. “[B]ecause the GBI biologist personally conducted much of the testing herself (reviewing and analyzing all of the testing procedures and data forming the basis of her opinion testimony at trial), she—unlike the expert in Bullcoming —was not acting as a mere surrogate for the GBI technician or the Utah lab. Compare Bullcoming [ v. New Mexico , 09-10876, ___ U.S. ___, at (II)(B) 131 S.Ct. 2705, 180 L.Ed.2d 610, 2011 WL 2472799 (June 23, 2011)] (holding that ‘surrogate testimony’ of the ‘scientist who did not sign the certification or perform, observe, or review the testing procedures reported in the certification’ violates the Confrontation Clause). Rather, she had a ‘substantial personal connection to the scientific [tests] at issue.’ Disharoon v. State, 291 Ga. 45, 48 (727 S.E.2d 465) (2012). Accordingly, the GBI forensic biologist's testimony did not violate Crosby's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right. See Leger v. State, 291 Ga. 584, 592–93(5) (732 S.E.2d 53) (2012) (holding that expert testimony regarding DNA evidence did not violate Confrontation Clause on the ground that expert did not perform all the steps in testing the DNA because expert supervised the testing, interpreted the