Confrontation Clause Violation In Watkins V. The State: A Lesson For Georgia Criminal Cases

By George C. Creal, Jr., Atlanta DUI Lawyer

On February 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued a significant ruling in Watkins v. The State (S24A1187), a case that underscores the importance of the Confrontation Clause in criminal trials, particularly when forensic evidence is involved. As an Atlanta DUI lawyer, I often see cases where the State relies on forensic reports like toxicology results to build its case. The Watkins decision serves as a critical reminder of the constitutional protections defendants are entitled to, especially when key witnesses, such as a GBI toxicologist, are absent from trial.

In this case, Roderick Watkins was convicted of malice murder, feticide, and drug related charges stemming from the 2012 shooting death of Ashley Clark and her unborn child in Fulton County. Among the charges were possession of cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony predicated on cocaine possession. At trial, the State introduced evidence of cocaine found in Clark’s apartment, relying on a forensic report prepared by GBI analyst Amber Sloan. However, Sloan had left the GBI by the time of the trial in 2014 and did not testify. Instead, the State called another GBI analyst, Joseph Karpf, who testified about Sloan’s findings, confirming that the substance was cocaine, despite not having performed or observed the testing himself.

Watkins did not object to Karpf’s testimony at trial, but on appeal, he argued that this violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Smith v. Arizona (602 U.S. 779). The Georgia Supreme Court agreed, applying plain error review. Under Smith, a prosecutor cannot introduce an absent laboratory analyst’s testimonial statements like Sloan’s report through another witness unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross examine the analyst. Karpf’s testimony, which relayed Sloan’s findings to prove the substance was cocaine, was deemed a clear violation of this principle. The Court noted that Karpf neither conducted nor observed the testing, and Watkins had no chance to cross examine Sloan, making the testimony inadmissible.

This violation directly impacted Watkins’ drug related convictions. The Court found that without Karpf’s testimony, the State couldn’t have proven the substance was cocaine, affecting the outcome of the possession charges. Consequently, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed Watkins’ convictions for possession of cocaine and the related firearm charge, though it upheld the murder and feticide convictions due to strong independent evidence, such as Clark’s diary entries and expert testimony on domestic violence patterns.

For DUI cases in Georgia, this ruling has significant implications. Prosecutors often rely on GBI toxicology reports to prove the presence of alcohol or drugs in a defendant’s system. If the toxicologist who performed the test isn’t available to testify, and the State attempts to introduce the report through another witness like a supervisor who didn’t conduct the testing this could violate the Confrontation Clause. Defendants have the right to cross examine the person who actually performed the forensic analysis, ensuring the reliability of the evidence against them.

At my firm, we’re committed to protecting your constitutional rights in DUI and criminal cases. If you’re facing charges involving forensic evidence, such as a toxicology report, we’ll scrutinize whether the State has met its burden under the Confrontation Clause. The Watkins case highlights why it’s critical to have experienced legal representation to challenge improperly admitted evidence and safeguard your right to a fair trial.

George C. Creal, Jr. is an Atlanta based DUI and criminal defense attorney dedicated to ensuring justice for his clients.