United States v. Washington

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 · Evidence

498 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2007)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseHearsayExpert testimonyMachine-generated evidenceSixth AmendmentCrawfordDavis

Facts

After Washington was stopped following erratic slow driving on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, Officer Hatch observed that he was unresponsive and smelled strongly of PCP. Washington agreed to provide a blood sample, which was tested at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology using gas chromatography and other screening methods operated by lab technicians. The testing instruments produced computer printouts and graphs showing ethanol and PCP in the sample, and Dr. Barry Levine, the lab director, reviewed those raw machine-generated data and issued a report. At trial, Dr. Levine testified to the blood alcohol and PCP levels and opined that those substances were consistent with Washington's nonresponsive behavior, even though he had not personally performed the testing.

Issue

Whether the admission of Dr. Levine's expert testimony, based on raw data generated by laboratory testing machines operated by technicians who did not testify, violated the hearsay rule or Washington's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.

Rule

Raw data generated by diagnostic machines are not statements of lab technicians, are not hearsay because only a person can be a declarant under Rule 801, and are not testimonial under the Confrontation Clause. Challenges to the reliability of such machine-generated information are addressed through authentication by showing the process or system produces an accurate result, not through hearsay or confrontation analysis.

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Richmond, a prosecutor charges Lena Ortiz with driving while impaired. At trial, a toxicologist who supervises a forensic lab testifies that a gas chromatograph printout showed Lena's blood contained a controlled substance, even though a different technician loaded the sample and pressed the machine's start button.

Lena objects that admitting the toxicologist's testimony violates the Sixth Amendment because the technician who operated the machine did not testify. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The objection should be overruled. Under the majority opinion, raw data produced by a diagnostic machine are not statements of a human declarant, so they are neither hearsay nor testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes. The technician merely operated the machine; the inculpatory assertion came from the machine's output, not from the technician.