‘to certify to the correctness of a copy of a record kept in his office,’ but had ‘no authority to furnish, as evidence for the trial of a lawsuit, his interpretation of what the record contains or shows, or to certify to its substance or effect.’ ” Melendez-Diaz, supra at 2539, quoting State v. Wilson, 141 La. 404, 409 (1917). The Court in Melendez-Diaz further explained that “[b]usiness and public records are generally admissible absent confrontation not because they qualify under an exception to the hearsay rules, but because — having been created for the administration of an entity’s affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial — they are not testimonial.” Melendez-Diaz, supra at 2539-2540. See Commonwealth v. Weeks, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5-7 (2010) (<HOLDING>). Thus, when determining the admissibility of a
holding that admission of statement with references to we or they which did not directly implicate defendant did not violate defendants confrontation rights holding that admission of business records does not violate the confrontation clause under roberts holding that admission in evidence of certified copies of docket sheets of defendants prior convictions did not violate defendants sixth amendment right to confrontation because such records are not testimonial holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation holding that the introduction of driving records without a witness did not violate a defendants right to confrontation