It looks like some Blazier trailers are starting to come out:
We consider whether the preadmission of two drug testing reports violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. In light of United States v. Blazier, 69 M.J. 218 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (Blazier II), we find error under the Confrontation Clause and remand to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) for consideration of whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
A little more
In light of Blazier II, the AFCCA’s decision was erroneous for two reasons. First, it was error to admit the cover memoranda through a surrogate witness. See Blazier, 69 M.J. at 223-24. Second, in finding that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the AFCCA incorrectly found that Dr. Turner did not rely upon the cover memoranda in his testimony. See id. at 225 (“[N]either the rules of evidence nor the Confrontation Clause permit an expert witness to act as a conduit for repeating testimonial hearsay.”) (emphasis in original).
United States v. Cavitt is the same.