BJ McElveen v. Louisiana

The only evidence supporting BJ McElveen’s convictions for two counts of armed robbery was the trial testimony of a DNA analyst who acted as a surrogate for the out-of-court conclusions of his absent colleagues. While Mr. McElveen’s case was pending on direct appeal, this Court ruled that a state may not introduce testimonial, out-of-court statements of a forensic analyst at trial “through a surrogate analyst who did not participate in their creation.” Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779, 803 (2024). The question presented is: Whether, in light of this Court’s intervening decision in Smith v. Arizona, this Court should grant the petition, vacate the judgments below, and remand this matter for reconsideration?