Williams v. Illinois

In Williams v. Illinois (2012) 567 U.S. the defendant was charged with rape. Vaginal swabs containing semen were sent to a Cellmark laboratory. A police laboratory expert testified that Cellmark analysts derived a DNA profile of the man whose semen was on the swabs and sent the profile to the police laboratory. In the expert's opinion, the Cellmark DNA profile matched the police laboratory's DNA profile obtained from the defendant when he was arrested for an unrelated offense. The Cellmark report was not introduced into evidence and no Cellmark analyst testified. Justice Alito wrote the plurality opinion in Williams. The opinion concluded the evidence was not testimonial hearsay for alternative reasons. First, out-of-court statements related by an expert solely for the purpose of explaining the assumption on which the opinion rests are not offered for their truth. (Williams, supra, 132 S.Ct. at pp. 2239-2240.) In the alternative, the Cellmark report was not testimonial because it was not prepared for the primary purpose of accusing a targeted individual. Justice Thomas rejected the plurality's reasoning but concurred in the result. He concluded that the evidence did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the Cellmark report lacked the requisite "solemnity" to be considered testimonial. Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion agreed with Justice Thomas's criticism of the plurality. The dissent observed testimony relating to the Cellmark report was admitted for its truth, and a report may be testimonial even if it was not prepared for the purpose of accusing a targeted individual. It disagreed, however, with Justice Thomas's conclusion that the report was admissible because it lacked formality in that it was neither sworn nor a certified declaration of fact.