Bullcoming v. New Mexico
E821197
Bullcoming v. New Mexico is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that defendants have the right to cross-examine the specific analyst who prepared a forensic laboratory report used as evidence against them.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Bullcoming v. New Mexico canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9799017 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Bullcoming v. New Mexico Context triple: [Crawford v. Washington, subsequentCaseInterpreting, Bullcoming v. New Mexico]
-
A.
Kleppe v. New Mexico
Kleppe v. New Mexico is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed broad federal authority over public lands and wildlife under the Constitution’s Property Clause.
-
B.
Arizona v. Johnson
Arizona v. Johnson is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified police authority to frisk passengers during lawful traffic stops when officers reasonably suspect they are armed and dangerous.
-
C.
Bucklew v. Precythe
Bucklew v. Precythe is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Missouri’s method of execution against an Eighth Amendment challenge, clarifying the standards for inmates claiming that a particular execution protocol would cause them severe pain.
-
D.
Texas v. New Mexico
Texas v. New Mexico is a U.S. Supreme Court interstate water rights case involving disputes over allocation and enforcement of river water compacts between the states.
-
E.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Bullcoming v. New Mexico Target entity description: Bullcoming v. New Mexico is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that defendants have the right to cross-examine the specific analyst who prepared a forensic laboratory report used as evidence against them.
-
A.
Kleppe v. New Mexico
Kleppe v. New Mexico is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed broad federal authority over public lands and wildlife under the Constitution’s Property Clause.
-
B.
Arizona v. Johnson
Arizona v. Johnson is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified police authority to frisk passengers during lawful traffic stops when officers reasonably suspect they are armed and dangerous.
-
C.
Bucklew v. Precythe
Bucklew v. Precythe is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Missouri’s method of execution against an Eighth Amendment challenge, clarifying the standards for inmates claiming that a particular execution protocol would cause them severe pain.
-
D.
Texas v. New Mexico
Texas v. New Mexico is a U.S. Supreme Court interstate water rights case involving disputes over allocation and enforcement of river water compacts between the states.
-
E.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Confrontation Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional criminal procedure
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ evidence law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 2011-03-02 ⓘ |
| caseOutcome | Judgment of the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed ⓘ |
| citation | 564 U.S. 647 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy | Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ |
| concurrenceType |
concurring in part
ⓘ
concurring in the judgment ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Confrontation Clause
ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2011-06-23 ⓘ |
| decisionType | 5–4 decision ⓘ |
| dissentBy | Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ |
| dissentJoinedBy |
John G. Roberts Jr.
ⓘ
Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 09-10876 ⓘ |
| factPattern | The case involved admission of a blood-alcohol concentration report in a DWI prosecution without testimony from the analyst who performed the test. ⓘ |
| fullName | Bullcoming v. New Mexico ⓘ |
| holding |
Surrogate testimony by another analyst who did not perform or observe the test is insufficient to satisfy the Confrontation Clause when the report is testimonial.
ⓘ
The Confrontation Clause requires that the prosecution present the testimony of the analyst who certified a forensic laboratory report unless that analyst is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. ⓘ |
| issue | Whether the prosecution may introduce a forensic laboratory report through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test. ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ Elena Kagan ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| keyword |
forensic evidence
ⓘ
laboratory analyst testimony ⓘ surrogate expert testimony ⓘ testimonial statements ⓘ |
| lowerCourt |
Supreme Court of New Mexico
ⓘ
linked to:
New Mexico Supreme Court
|
| majorityOpinionBy | Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ |
| originatingJurisdiction |
State of New Mexico
ⓘ
linked to:
New Mexico
|
| page | 647 ⓘ |
| party |
Donald Bullcoming
ⓘ
State of New Mexico ⓘ
linked to:
New Mexico
|
| relatedTo |
Crawford v. Washington
ⓘ
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts ⓘ Williams v. Illinois ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
admissibility of forensic laboratory reports
ⓘ
right to confrontation of witnesses ⓘ |
| volume | 564 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Bullcoming v. New Mexico Description of subject: Bullcoming v. New Mexico is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that defendants have the right to cross-examine the specific analyst who prepared a forensic laboratory report used as evidence against them.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.