On today's episode Jake unpacks the recent North Carolina Court of Appeals opinion, State v. Holt. Decided shortly after Justin Philbeck's deep dive into this issue on Episode 259, this opinion brings clarity to the issue of substitute analyst testimony on blood testing cases in North Carolina.

Highlights:

· A deep dive into the Court's reasons for excluding substitute analyst testimony and the original analyst's report.

· Outline for cross-examination of a substitute analyst, focusing on questions related to: clotting, fermentation, the condition of blood sample's packaging, adequacy of the blood volume collected, homogeneity, and pipetted bubbles.

· Post State v. Holt, the State's viable path to introduction of blood lab results in a case where the original analyst is unavailable.

· Discussion of the difference between blood analysis involving alcohol testing and testing for drugs / other impairing substances.