No. 24-6084
Christopher Roalson v. Jon Noble, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process due-process-clause evidence-preservation forensic-evidence
Latest Conference:
2025-01-24
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether allowing an expert witness to discuss other test results or testimonial statements if the testimonial statements were not themselves admitted as evidence is consistent with the Confrontation Clause, for Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2705, 2725 (2011).
Whether allowing a surrogate or expert to act as a conduit for the actual DNA analyst's conclusions where the lab report itself is never admitted as evidence at trial is consistent with the Confrontation Clause.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a state's forensic evidence preservation statute that allows destruction of evidence after a specified time period is consistent with a criminal defendant's constitutional due process rights
Docket Entries
2025-01-27
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2025.
2025-01-03
Waiver of right of respondent Jon Noble to respond filed.
2024-11-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 6, 2025)
Attorneys
Christopher Roalson
Christopher Roalson — Petitioner
Jon Noble
Sarah Lynn Burgundy — Wisconsin Department of Justice, Respondent