Marty is a scientist at the state crime lab. He conducted the analysis of the fiber found on the victim’s body and provided a detailed report that linked the fiber to the carpet in the defendant’s car. Marty dies before the trial commences. The prosecution wants to introduce Marty’s report and findings at trial as evidence that links the defendant to the victim. Harris’s attorney objects. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, how will Harris’s trial judge rule?

Question

a. Marty’s report was prepared by a state employee in the course of his employment and, as such, has sufficient indicia of reliability and is therefore admissible at Harris’ trial.
b. Marty’s report is admissible at Harris’s trial as long as the report is accompanied by a sworn affidavit that recorded the results of the tests that Marty conducted on the fiber found on the victim.
c. Marty is unavailable to testify at Harris’s trial and cannot be subjected to cross-examination and therefore his report is inadmissible at Harris’s trial.
d. Marty is unavailable to testify at Harris’s trial, but since his report is non-testimonial and prepared solely to assist law enforcement in solving a case it is admissible at Harris’s trial.

Answer 1

c. Marty is unavailable to testify at Harris’s trial and cannot be subjected to cross-examination and therefore his report is inadmissible at Harris’s trial.