(concluding that admission of hospital records in evidence against the defendant did not violate his right to confront witnesses because "[fireating physicians have every reason to be truthful, accurate, and complete when preparing hospital records”). 6 . Because the defendant in Tayman did not object to the admission of the certificate at trial, our opinion applied an obvious error standard of review. Tayman, 2008 ME 177, ¶ 23, 960 A.2d at 1158. 7 . Two courts have adopted the reasoning of Melendez-Diaz and held that certificates attesting to the fact that a government official searched particular records and failed to find either a permit or license were testimonial and violated a defendant's right to confrontation. See Tabaka v. District of Columbia, 976 A.2d 173, 175 (D.C.2009) (<HOLDING>); see also Washington v. Florida, 18 So.3d
holding that there is an inference from the existence of a blank for the name of defendants lawyer and from the absence of any evidence to the contrary that defendant was not represented by counsel holding that where appellant failed to present either expert or lay testimony as to the appropriate standard of care to be used appellant failed to present any evidence indicating the existence of an issue of fact thus summary judgment was proper holding that a certificate from a motor vehicles official which certified to the absence of any records indicating that appellant was issued an operators permit was testimonial holding that an employer must permit cpa to examine employers records holding that municipal court records were admissible under  official records or public documents  exception