Commonwealth v. Munoz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an expert who offers an independent opinion based on another analyst’s report can be meaningfully cross-examined “on the general risk of error in forensic testing”
• holding that an expert who offers an independent opinion based on another analyst's report can be meaningfully cross-examined \on the general risk of error in forensic testing\
• \[T]he Constitution has not yet been construed to require the testimony of every person who might conceivably have compromised the reliability of the evidence introduced against a defendant.\
• “[T]he Constitution has not yet been construed to require the testimony of every person who might conceivably have compromised the reliability of the evidence introduced against a defendant.”
• “Our cases . . . distinguish^ between a substitute analyst’s testimony as to independent opinions based on data generated by a nontestify-ing analyst, and a substitute analyst’s testimony as to the testing analyst’s reports and conclusions”
• “[A] substitute analyst, basing an independent opinion on data generated by a prior analyst, can be cross-examined on many of the specific risks that could lead to an erroneous conclusion concerning the identity and weight of a substance at issue in a particular case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).