HAROLD ALBERT NORTON, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Berger, Filed June 24, 2014,
Confrontation- Because the report by a private DNA analyst was sufficiently formalized as to render it testimonial, the right to confrontation was violated when the circuit court permitted one DNA analyst to testify regarding the work of another DNA analyst and admitted the report of the non-testifying DNA analyst

In Derr, a plurality CoA opinion interpreted the plurality USSC opinion of Williams v. Illinois, in the end finding that a statement must be “formalized” in order to be “testimonial,” (and thus subject to the Confrontation Clause). This, along with Malaska v. State, represent the CoSA attempts at reconciling those plurality opinions.

Notes on the Confrontation Clause:
– The right to confrontation (as described by Crawford and its progeny) is violated only when the evidence to be presented is both: offered for the truth of the matter asserted AND testimonial.
– The CoSA paid special attention, as did Justice Thomas, to whether the evidence (in this case the report) “lack[ed] the solemnity of an affidavit or deposition,” being neither “a sworn nor a certified declaration of fact.”
– The CoSA found the Norton DNA report sufficiently formalized because it contained: language guaranteeing “a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” regarding the results; contained the signatures by the DNA analysts immediately following the conclusion of the test attesting to the results