What does it mean for something to be “Testimonial?”

What does it mean for something to be “Testimonial?”
This question is not about whether we should continue allowing blood samples from drunk drivers in at trial. We all agree that the use of blood samples that determine a person’s BAC should definitely be continued. No one wants drunk drivers on the road. Please focus purely on whether blood samples “testify” about you.

For this discussion, consider a person being stopped for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. The police take a breath test at the scene, and based on the results, they take the suspect to the station for a blood test. Blood is taken from the suspect, and it clearly demonstrates an illegal level of intoxication. When the results of this blood test are introduced in court, would that be considered self incrimination? In other words, the blood sample is part of the suspect, and it is being used in court against the suspect. Case law supports this practice.

Do you believe that blood samples are “testimonial in nature and should therefore be excluded under the Fifth Amendment? Why or why not? Please explain in detail.

***Please note that we all agree that blood sample test results SHOULD be used against a person in court. No one wants drunk drivers on the road and everyone agrees that blood sample test results are the right way to measure whether someone was or was not intoxicated at the time of any offense. Please do not address the importance of continuing to allow blood sample test results in court. That will never change and it never should.

This discussion is only about whether blood sample test results “speak” for you in court and therefore can be considered “testimony.”

Last Completed Projects