The appellant, who was convicted of two alleged aggravated robberies, complains the trial court erred in permitting a forensic biologist to testify about a DNA report she reviewed for the non-testifying biologist who prepared it. The appellant had ample opportunity to confront the reviewer about the complex process used in the DNA testing, the data gathered, and the analysis she personally performed to evaluate the analysis. Accordingly, his rights under the Confrontation Clause were satisfied. The trial court's judgment is affirmed. Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-11-00362-CR, 10-30-2012.
Font Size: 
Jamerson v. State
Tx. App. Dist. 5
November 5, 2012
This article requires premium access
This article requires premium access to Texas Lawyer. Please sign in or subscribe to read the full text.
