According to the dissent from denial of certiorari, to prove Vanessa Stuart was driving under the influence, Alabama introduced the results of a blood-alcohol test conducted hours after her arrest. The State did not call the analyst who performed the test. Instead, it called a different analyst, who used the test results and alcohol-metabolism principles to estimate Stuart's blood-alcohol level at the earlier time when she was driving. The petition sought Supreme Court review of whether that procedure violated the Sixth Amendment.
Issue
Whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari to review an Alabama decision allowing the State to use a blood-alcohol test through a different analyst rather than the analyst who performed the test.
Rule
This disposition establishes no merits rule because the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a burglary prosecution in Phoenix, the trial judge admitted a lab report through a substitute chemist. On appeal, the prosecutor argues that a United States Supreme Court order stating only that a petition for certiorari was denied in a similar case conclusively establishes that this practice is constitutional.
How should the appellate court treat that Supreme Court order?
Explanation. The only majority action in the provided decision is the denial of certiorari. A certiorari denial does not establish a merits rule and does not resolve the underlying Confrontation Clause issue. Therefore, lower courts may not treat the denial itself as binding approval of the practice.