Whitaker v. State Road Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that for hearsay purposes \raw data generated by the machines were not the statements of technicians\ who operated the machines
• holding that machine printout of raw blood sample data not testimonial, and lab technicians who generated data not required to testify to satisfy Confrontation Clause
• holding that “the raw data generated by the machines do not constitute ‘statements,’ and the machines are not ‘declar-ants.’ As such, no out-of-court statement implicating the Confrontation Clause was admitted into evidence through the testimony of Dr. Levine”
• noting that concerns about machine-generated statements should be \addressed through the process of authentication not by hearsay or Confrontation Clause analysis\
• stating that concerns regarding the reliability of machine-generated information are addressed by requiring the proponent to authenticate the evidence as provided under Rule 901(b)(9)
• holding drug test results obtained from blood analysis were not testimonial under Crawford and Davis because A statements @ in report did not establish or prove past events

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).