Introduction of Computer Generated Data Does Not Violate Confrontation Clause

State v. Ziegler, Minn.Ct.App., 11/3/2014.  These days, if you take your car to a mechanic, odds are that she will plug your car into a computer.  The mechanic’s computer chats up your car’s computer and a few hundred dollars later there’s a suggestion to replace the air filter.  So, what if instead of the mechanic’s computer chatting up your car’s computer it’s the state patrol’s computer?

Ms. Ziegler set out to do, not sure just what, to a Ford Focus that had just passed her and then just barely passed the car in front of her.  She gave chase, then moved into the oncoming lane to pass the Focus.  The Focus sped up to keep that from happening so now the two cars are drag racing down the highway.  Problem is, there’s another car coming right at Ms. Ziegler.  By the time the Focus relents and lets Ms. Ziegler back into the correct lane it’s too late; she and the Focus collide and end up in the ditch. 

The state charged her with three counts of criminal vehicular operation.  During the trial, the state called a crash reconstructionist; his testimony relied, in part, on data that another officer had collected from the computer in Ms. Ziegler’s car.  Essentially, the car’s computer spilled the beans into a software program.  The software program crunched the numbers and then spit out a report totally without any other human intervention.  From that report, along with his other reconstructing, the reconstructionist testified about the speed and braking actions of Ms. Ziegler’s car in the final seconds before the crash.

Ms. Ziegler objected to all this.  She said that the data from her car was hearsay and that its admission at her trial violated her right of confrontation as currently understood from Crawford and its progeny.  Both the trial court and the court of appeals disagreed with that assertion.  The court of appeals adopts the conclusion of several federal appeals circuits that “statements” that are within the purview of the confrontation clause of are those of humans, and not computers.  So, for instance, a chemist’s written report that recites the readings from the testing instrument is admissible while the chemist’s conclusions that those readings mean that the tested substance is cocaine is not.  For Ms. Ziegler, the speed and braking data is not hearsay, but the conclusions drawn from that data by the reconstructionist were subject to cross examination.  The data are not testimonial statements at all and thus do not implicate any confrontation concerns.