Rejects argument that “the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases,” and holds instead “that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Plurality opinion on whether Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce an analyst’s forensic report through an expert witness; plurality holds in this case Clause did not preclude an expert’s testimony that defendant’s DNA profile matched a vaginal swab semen DNA profile produced by a Cellmark analyst who did not testify.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Declines to adopt a due process judicial reliability screening procedure for eyewitness identification evidence.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

In civil contempt proceedings to enforce child support, “where . . . the custodial parent (entitled to receive the support) is unrepresented by counsel, the State need not provide counsel to the noncustodial parent (required to provide the support),” subject to the “caveat . . . that the State must nonetheless have in place alternative procedures that assure a fundamentally fair determination of the critical incarceration-related question, whether the supporting parent is able to comply with the support order.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Statement of mortally wounded victim to police was not “testimonial” under Crawford Confrontation Clause holding because circumstances indicated “primary purpose” of the police questions eliciting statement was to “meet an ongoing emergency.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion