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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT