the core class of testimonial statements covered by Confrontation Clause. Id. at 51-52, 124 S.Ct. 1354. The initial question, therefore, is whether Crawford so clearly foreshadowed Melendez-Diaz that the contrary holding of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Verde was an unreasonable application of federal law already clearly established by the Supreme Court in Crawford. This Court rules that it was. Commonwealth v. Verde was controversial from the moment it was handed down. Hinojos-Mendoza v. People, 169 P.3d 662, 666-67 (Colo.2007) (“[The] historic business records hearsay exception does not mean that any document which falls within the modern-day business records exception is automatically nontestimonial.”); State v. Johnson, 982 So.2d 672, 680-81 (Fla.2008) (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. State, 891 N.E.2d 657, 660-61
holding that lab reports are accusatory and subject to confrontation clause holding that reports of chemical analyses were testimonial in nature and subject to the confrontation clause requirements holding confrontation clause violations subject to harmless error analysis holding that confrontation clause violations are subject to harmless error review holding that confrontation clause issues are subject to harmless error analysis