prior testimony will be introduced only if the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him.” Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 358, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)). “Testimonial” evidence includes, at a minimum, “prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and [ ] police interrogations.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354. It is well-established that reports memorializing the work performed by laboratory analysts when carrying out forensic duties are testimonial statements subject to the requirements of the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted by Crawford. Bullcoming v. New Mexico, — U.S.-, -, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2717, 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305,
holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay holding that such reports fell within the core class of testimonial statements described in this courts leading confrontation clause decisions internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that parts of the adult sexual assault victims statement to emergency room personnel that described the nature of the alleged attack and the cause of her symptoms and pain were not testimonial because they fell into the category of statements made by a patient with a selfish interest in treatment and were not accusatory in nature internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements holding that reports of chemical analyses were testimonial in nature and subject to the confrontation clause requirements