Whether the introduction of an autopsy report which was presented as substantive evidence but not testified to by its author violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . , In Commonwealth v. McCloud, 457 Pa. 310, 322 A.2d 653 (a. 1974), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed whether the defendant’s right to confrontation and cross-examination was violated when portions of an autopsy report opining the victims’ cause of death was read into evidence without making the authoring medical examination available to testify. Therein, it was held that the report’s use to establish an element of the crime denied the defendant his fundamental constitutional right of confrontational and was error. (emphasis added). Two decades later, this Honorable Court decided the case of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004) holding that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment ; ) : ; prohibits the use of testimonial hearsay unless the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine . the unavailable declarant. Id. at 54. Later, in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305,. 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), this Honorable Court addressed the “class of testimonial statements os _ covered by the Confrontation Clause” delineated in Crawford. Id. at 2531. Such testimonial / , statements included “extrajudicial statements ... contained in formalized testimonial materials, « such as affidavits [...] that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness~ reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for the use at trial.” Id., quoting Crawford, supra at 52 . In Melendez-Diaz, this Court determined that the certificates of an analysis describing the results of forensic testing which determined that the seized substance to be cocaine, was an affidavit as such was recognized as testimonial. Because the defendant had a right to confront his accuser and the prosecution offered no witness in support of the proffered certificates, the . Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment was violated when this admission occurred. : i . Finally, in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011), this Honorable Court applied’ its decision in Melendez-Diaz and held that a laboratory report prepared for the defendant’s drunken driving trial was testimonial in nature pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, and the defendant’s right to conformation demanded that he have the right to cross-examine the analyst who prepared the report. Id. at 2713. . ; Premised upon the above, most recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Brown, 185 A.3d 316 (Pa. 2018) has determined that an autopsy report is testimonial and its admission into evidence without the medical examiner’s testimony and in the absence of any prior opportunity to cross-examine him, violates a defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. : . The questions presented is: WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD CONSIDER IF THE . ; . INTRODUCTION OF AN AUTOPSY REPORT WHICH WAS oS PRESENTED AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE BUT NOT TESTIFIED TO co BY ITS AUTHOR, VIOLATES THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH : AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION? . WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT *: PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT COUNSEL — . REPRESENTATION FELL BELOW AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF . REASONABLENESS AS ARTICULATED IN STRICKLAND AND WAS THAT DECISION CONTRARY TO THIS COURT’S HOLDING? _ ii