The Re-Rejection of Magyari: CAAF's Current Testimonial Hearsay Interpretation

The Re-Rejection of Magyari: CAAF's Current Testimonial Hearsay Interpretation

As mentioned previously a prior blog, the CAAF in Sweeny (2011) chastised lower courts and prosecutors for their continued reliance on Magyari (2006) after Blazier II's (2010) decision, which concluded that the drug screening data is, in fact, testimonial, and falls under the 6th Amendment's confrontation clause. In 2012, it appears, Magyari continues to be cited in government briefs. In U.S. v. Henderson, the court definitively ruled that Magyari is not to be used to justifying admission of all portions of a drug test report (except the summarized data on the cover).

In Henderson, as in Sweeny, the court rejected the prosecution's argument that by calling an expert to testify as to the drug testing results, the accused was not denied their right to confront their accuser guaranteed in the Constitution's 6th amendment. CAAF concluded that the trial court made a plain and obvious error by permitting the cover document to be admitted as it was a clear, formalized, affidavit-like statement; conversely, the drug data itself was admitted without error, as it was considered to be of a routine nature.

If you are currently serving in the military and are facing drug charges, charges involving a DUI, sex crime or AWOL, contact Dishman Military Advocates to review your case.

Dishman Military Advocates - Military Criminal Defense Lawyer
Located at PO Box 14495
Oklahoma City, OK .
View Map
Phone: (877) 521-9006
© 2017 All Rights Reserved.

When You're

Ready to talk

Our firm is ready to listen. Call for a FREE case consultation.

Call Toll-Free 877.521.9006
Internet Marketing Experts The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.