United States v. Blazier was argued at CAAF and you can hear the oral argument at this link.
The U. S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Bullcoming v. New Mexico. Courtesy of CAAFLog here is the granted issue:
Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform the laboratory analysis described in the statements.
Sounds like Blazier doesn’t it. Question, will CAAF defer ruling in Blazier and several riders awaiting a decision in Bullcoming.
Here is the decision in State v. Bullcoming.
Courtesy of Prof. Friedman:
State v. Aragon, a companion case to Bullcoming.
Commenting on this case, Kent Schiedegger over at crimeandconsequences observes:
Should the analyst be relieved he doesn’t have to go testify or insulted he is called a "mere scrivener"?
Here is the SCOTUSBlog link.