Back to Articles

Eleventh Circuit Upholds DNA Analyst Testimony While Vacating Brown's Sentence (24-10289, Sept. 9, 2026)

TL;DR:

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not plainly err by admitting a government DNA expert’s testimony who relied on another analyst’s work, applying the Confrontation Clause framework, and it vacated Rodney Brown’s sentence for an ex post facto error in sentencing guidelines, remanding for resentencing under the guidelines in effect at the time Brown committed the offenses. The decision provides tactical guidance on handling forensic testimony, the use of surrogate expert testimony, and how to preserve and challenge foundational issues in both admissibility and sentencing. Date of decision: September 9, 2026.

What happened in United States v. Brown

In United States v. Brown, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed a trial in which a DNA analyst testified about the defendant’s DNA match to items recovered in a convenience-store robbery. The court confronted two intertwined questions: whether the district court violated the Confrontation Clause by allowing a DNA expert to testify about laboratory results when another analyst performed the hands-on testing, and whether the district court erred in applying a post‑offense version of the sentencing guidelines. The panel concluded that the district court did not plainly err in admitting the DNA expert’s testimony under the Confrontation Clause. The court clarified that a non-testifying analyst’s statements can be conveyed through a testifying colleague when the latter testifies based on his own independent work, provided the testimony is not used as an impermissible surrogate for the absent analyst’s statements. The court’s analysis referenced established Supreme Court precedents in Crawford, Melendez-Diaz, Bullcoming, and Smith to delineate when surrogate testimony implicates the Confrontation Clause and when it does not. The opinion also observed that the district court had relied on the 2023 Guidelines for sentencing, which reclassified Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence for purposes of a career-offender enhancement, a change Brown’s offense predated. The Eleventh Circuit found this to be plain error, vacating Brown’s sentence and remanding for resentencing under the 2021 Guidelines, while affirming Brown’s convictions. The opinion is published as a full appellate decision on September 9, 2026. (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)

Why this matters for trial attorneys

  • Confrontation Clause nuances in forensic testimony. The Brown decision reinforces that trial teams should scrutinize whether a non-testifying lab analyst’s findings are being conveyed to juries through a testifying colleague, and if so, whether the testifying witness is describing his own independent testing or merely relaying the absent analyst’s writings. The court stresses that surrogate testimony is permissible in some circumstances, but the linkage to the absent analyst’s out-of-court statements must be carefully evaluated against the Confrontation Clause standard. Practitioners should prepare cross-examination plans that probe the testifying expert’s independent testing steps and challenge the extent to which the absent analyst’s conclusions are being re-stated rather than re-derived. The published opinion walks through the doctrinal boundaries using Crawford, Melendez-Diaz, and Bullcoming as guiding authorities. (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)
  • Strategic use or challenges to DNA and other forensic testimony. For trial teams, Brown signals that prosecutors may rely on multiple analysts in a documented, defensible way, so long as the defense can press for transparency about who performed which steps and whether any out-of-court material is being offered for its truth. In practice, counsel should demand clear testimony about chain of custody, the testing steps actually performed, the specific methods used, and whether any components of the evidence are based on someone else’s work. This case provides a concrete framework for identifying potential Confrontation Clause issues early in trial preparation. (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)
  • Sentencing protocol risk and the Ex Post Facto concern. The Brown panel’s determination that the district court erred in applying post‑offense sentencing guidelines and that the sentence must be resentenced under the guidelines in effect at the time of the offense highlights the persistent risk of ex post facto flaws in complex sentencing calculations. Although the conviction stands, the remand for resentencing under the 2021 Guidelines creates a practical reminder for defense and prosecution teams to verify the timing and applicability of guideline amendments in sentencing motions and to preserve the record accordingly. (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)

Practical steps for litigators going forward

  • Build a robust cross-examination plan around forensic testimony. Identify every point where an absent analyst’s findings are invoked and prepare targeted questions about independent testing, alternative explanations, and the reliability of the laboratory process. The Brown opinion underscores the line between allowed descriptive testimony and prohibited surrogacy for missing witnesses. Prepare to carve out the precise scope of what the testifying expert is truly testifying about, and be ready to invoke Rule 403 where appropriate if the probative value is outweighed by confusion or prejudice. (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)
  • Demand transparency on lab workflows. In cases with multi-step laboratory analyses, request detailed testimony about which analyst performed which steps, whether second analyses were independent, and whether any conclusions relied on the first analyst’s notes. Preparedness here can influence both admissibility disputes and the jury’s assessment of credibility. Brown demonstrates that courts will scrutinize these relationships on appeal, even if the district court ultimately allows the testimony. (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)
  • Closely monitor sentencing procedures. If a case involves complex, technical sentencing enhancements, double-check the version of the Guidelines in effect at the offense date versus the offense date plus sentencing date. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling that the use of a post‑offense guideline amendment was plain error in Brown means litigants should preserve objections to guideline applicability and consider timely motions for resentencing when appropriate. This is practical leverage in appeals and post-conviction contexts. (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)
  • Plan for post-trial motions and appellate issues. Because Brown affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence, appellate teams should frame post-conviction arguments to preserve and clinch issues regarding the provability of the forensic methods used, potential Confrontation Clause problems, and the admissibility of surrogate testimony while anticipating remand scenarios for sentencing. The published opinion explicitly preserves these distinctions for remedy on remand. (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)

Relevance to Objection Academy and trial-readiness training

  • For trial teams investing in practical objection and cross-examination drills, Brown provides a timely, concrete case study of how forensic testimony is treated at the appellate level. Objection Academy materials can be leveraged to simulate cross-examinations that probe a non-testifying analyst’s role and to practice strategizing around surrogate testimony issues in front of a jury. In addition, this development reinforces the value of realistic courtroom simulations that mirror the careful calibration between admissibility and argument at trial, a core strength of Objection Academy’s objection drills and trial-readiness modules. By training attorneys to recognize and respond to the kinds of forensic testimony issues Brown highlights, litigation teams can sharpen their ability to protect clients in both evidence challenges and sentencing matters. (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)

Next steps for practitioners

  • Read the full Eleventh Circuit opinion in United States v. Brown (24-10289, Sept. 9, 2026) to understand the boundaries of surrogate testimony under the Confrontation Clause and the precise reasoning the court used to distinguish permissible testimony from impermissible forms. The PDF is published by the Eleventh Circuit and is accessible online. (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)
  • If trial teams anticipate complex forensic evidence, prepare a pretrial plan that anticipates possible surrogate testimony scenarios and include specific objectives for voir dire and cross-examination aimed at forensic witnesses.
  • Monitor sentencing developments and the validity of guideline applications with respect to ex post facto considerations, especially in cases involving older offenses later subject to guideline amendments. Brown’s remand for resentencing underscores the ongoing importance of this issue for defense and prosecution alike. (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)

Sources

Note: This timely development provides a clear, actionable template for trial teams handling forensic evidence and surrogate expert testimony, while also illustrating the persistent importance of correct guideline application in sentencing. Objection Academy can leverage this case to illustrate how rigorous cross-examination and evidence-readiness techniques translate into courtroom preparedness in the current practice environment.

More Legal InsightsExplore MCLE Eligibility