Thomas Scott v. Mule Creek State Prison
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Thomas Scott appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas relief from his California state court convictions for possession of cocaine, robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court issued a certificate of appeala-bility on the issue of whether Scott’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the introduction of laboratory results without the opportunity to cross-examine the technician who performed the analysis. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c); U.S. Const. amend. VI; Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a), and we affirm.
Over Scott’s objection, the trial court allowed a forensic analyst to testify about the contents of a laboratory report prepared by an analyst he supervised. The laboratory report indicated that the substance found on Scott contained cocaine consistent with base form, in a usable quantity of .26 grams. On direct appeal, Scott argued that the introduction of this evidence violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).