## Facts

- A U.S. Park Police officer stopped Dwonne A. Washington around 3:30 a.m. after observing unusually slow and erratic driving on the Baltimore–Washington Parkway within federal jurisdiction.
- The officer observed signs of impairment, and Washington’s blood was drawn for testing.
- A forensic toxicology laboratory analyzed the blood using diagnostic machines; the operating technicians did not testify at trial.
- At a bench trial before a magistrate judge, Dr. Barry Levine, a forensic toxicology director, testified that the blood contained alcohol and phencyclidine (PCP) and opined that these substances explained Washington’s unsafe driving.
- Washington objected that admitting the expert testimony based on machine outputs violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules because the non-testifying technicians effectively supplied testimonial statements.
- The magistrate judge overruled the objection and convicted Washington of driving under the influence and unsafe operation under federal regulations; the district court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether machine-generated toxicology outputs relied on by an expert constitute hearsay “statements” attributable to non-testifying laboratory technicians.
2. Whether admitting expert testimony based on such machine-generated data violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause as “testimonial” evidence.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the expert’s testimony and opinion.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the diagnostic machine outputs were not statements of the technicians, were not hearsay, and were not testimonial.
- Because the underlying data were non-hearsay and non-testimonial, admitting Dr. Levine’s expert opinion based on those data did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
- The magistrate judge did not abuse discretion in admitting the testimony.

## Legal Principles

- Hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 requires a “statement” by a human “declarant”; machine-generated outputs, standing alone, are not hearsay.
- The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay absent unavailability and prior cross-examination; non-testimonial, non-hearsay machine outputs fall outside that rule.
- An expert may offer an independent opinion based on data reasonably relied on in the field, and admission then turns on evidentiary foundations for expert methodology rather than confrontation of technicians who produced machine outputs.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the admission of an expert toxicologist’s testimony grounded in diagnostic machine outputs, reasoning that the raw machine-generated data were neither hearsay nor testimonial and therefore did not trigger a right to confront the non-testifying laboratory technicians.


United States v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2007)