I haven't had time to carefully read the decision, but it may have a tremendous impact far beyond the hypothetical cocaine case noted. In New Mexico, for example, we have had in recent years what we like to call "The DUI Exception to the US Constitution" where the Supreme Court routinely holds that anything that might get in the way of DUI prosecutions (like, say, constituitonal rights) has to be tossed aside as "impractical." One of their decisions upheld a State Law that basically eliminated the right to confrontation of lab/analysis people in DUI cases. A lab report from the state lab is like the Ten Commandments coming down --- all the prosecution needs to show is a sheet of paper with an alleged "result" on it. (I'm exagerating and simplifying a little bit, but only a little). The NM Supremes seemed to believe that the confrontation clause was waivable by a legislature if the pols believed it was "impractical" to comply. I hope this new supreme court decision puts those kinds of beliefs to rest. [ in NM police can require a blood test, and they are fairly common. They go to the state lab ]. This is not an issue in most cases, but when it IS an issue the defense should be able to cross-examine someone. Or we could make "turnabout fair play" and allow the defense to introduce lab results without having to pay/provide for an expert to be cross-examined. I won't hold my breath!