ILNews

Court hears arguments in confrontation case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case that asks whether the defendant had the right to confront the lab technician who performed the DNA testing relevant to the case.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Richard Pendergrass' child molesting convictions in Richard Pendergrass v. State, 71S03-0808-CR-445.

One of the core issues of this case is whether the lab technician's supervisor, Lisa Black, who testified on behalf of the technician at trial, had firsthand knowledge of the procedures and information the technician used to analyze the DNA samples. Another is whether Black's testimony could be considered expert testimony.

Deputy Attorney General J.T. Whitehead argued that Black had firsthand knowledge in the case and she was qualified to testify on behalf the technician. Pendergrass' attorney, Jeffrey Kimmell, argued Black could only testify about the technician's character and how tests are typically performed, but not about the DNA test conducted for Pendergrass.

Justice Theodore Boehm questioned Kimmell as to why the technician wasn't subpoenaed to testify, and Kimmell answered that it wasn't the defendant's burden to subpoena witnesses to testify against him.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard said expert testimony is often admitted, citing accident reconstruction and blood-testing procedures. He asked Kimmell whether in addition to the expert witness testifying about an accident based on data collected at the scene, if the person who measured the skid marks on the road also had to be in court.

Also coming up during arguments was whether the test results were considered a business record, if the test could be considered ex parte, and if the tests were testimonial or non-testimonial.

The arguments can be found online on the Supreme Court's Web site.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT