What the Elana Gordon Decision Means for Massachusetts Drug Cases
A Q&A guide for defendants and defense lawyers
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Elana Gordon changed the way prosecutors must prove the identity of controlled substances. It reinforced one of the most powerful constitutional protections available to defendants: the right to confront the witnesses against them.
If you are facing a drug-distribution, trafficking, or possession-with-intent charge in Massachusetts, this case could reshape how your evidence is handled — and even whether it can be used against you.
Below, we answer key questions about what Gordon means and how it applies to drug cases throughout the Commonwealth.
Q1: What was the Elana Gordon case about?
In Commonwealth v. Elana Gordon (SJC-13735, 2025), the Supreme Judicial Court vacated a conviction because the Commonwealth used a “substitute chemist” to testify about a drug test performed by someone else.
The original analyst at the State Police Crime Lab had tested the substance and written the results but was unavailable for trial. Instead of calling that analyst, the prosecution called a supervisor to describe and “agree with” the original report.
The Court ruled that this violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The defendant had the right to cross-examine the person who actually did the testing — not a stand-in.
Q2: How does this decision affect Massachusetts drug prosecutions?
The ruling fundamentally changes how prosecutors can use lab results in court.
From now on, the Commonwealth must call the actual chemist who performed or directly observed the testing. A reviewing analyst, supervisor, or “technical reviewer” can no longer testify in their place unless:
The testifying witness independently analyzed the raw data; and
The testimony does not rely on the absent analyst’s written or verbal conclusions.
If the government cannot produce that original chemist, the drug-identification evidence may be excluded.
Q3: What does this mean for people charged with drug distribution or trafficking?
It means the Commonwealth’s case just became harder to prove.
In a typical drug prosecution, police seize suspected narcotics and send them to a State Police Crime Lab for testing. Months later, the analyst who tested the drugs may have left the lab or moved to another jurisdiction. Prosecutors often tried to use another chemist — sometimes a supervisor — to read the file and tell the jury what the substance was.
Under Gordon, that practice is unconstitutional. Unless the real analyst appears in court, the results are inadmissible. That can lead to:
Dismissal of charges for lack of admissible evidence;
Reduction in charges during plea negotiations.
Q4: What kinds of drug cases are affected?
Nearly every category of controlled-substance case may be impacted:
Possession with intent to distribute (G.L. c. 94C §32A-§32F)
Drug-trafficking cases (G.L. c. 94C §32E)
Distribution of Class A, B, C, or D substances
“School-zone” enhancements (G.L. c. 94C §32J)
Delivery of a controlled substance to a prisoner (as in Gordon)
Even probation-violation hearings that rely on drug-test results could now be challenged if the analyst who performed the testing does not testify.
Q5: How can defense lawyers use Gordon to challenge the Commonwealth’s evidence?
A skilled Massachusetts drug-defense attorney can use Gordon to file pre-trial motions that prevent substitute testimony.
Effective strategies include:
Demanding discovery of all analyst notes, bench sheets, and chain-of-custody records.
Identifying the actual testing chemist through subpoena.
Filing a motion in limine to exclude testimony from any substitute expert.
Cross-examining the testifying witness about what parts of the testing they actually performed or observed.
Arguing insufficiency of evidence if the lab results are excluded — because without them, the Commonwealth cannot prove the substance is a controlled drug.
When done properly, these challenges can result in dismissal or major charge reductions.
Q6: Does this mean all drug-lab evidence is invalid now?
No — but it must be handled correctly.
The SJC made clear that a qualified expert may still testify if they:
Personally performed or observed the testing;
Reviewed the raw data themselves (not just another chemist’s summary); and
Offer an independent scientific opinion rather than repeating another analyst’s conclusion.
For example, if a chemist re-tests the same material and draws their own conclusion, that testimony is admissible. What Gordon forbids is using a “reviewing chemist” to summarize the absent analyst’s work as if it were their own.
Q7: What if I was already convicted in a case where a substitute chemist testified?
You may have a basis for appeal or post-conviction relief.
Because Gordon applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Smith v. Arizona retroactively, defendants whose cases are still on direct appeal—or even those recently finalized—can argue that their confrontation rights were violated.
If a reviewing or supervisory chemist testified in place of the real analyst, you should have your attorney:
Obtain the trial transcript and identify who testified about the drug testing.
Determine whether the testifying chemist personally performed the tests.
Evaluate whether the error was harmless or whether it formed the basis of the conviction.
In many cases, the absence of the actual chemist means the Commonwealth had no admissible proof that the seized material was a controlled substance. That can justify a reversal or new trial.
Q8: How does this relate to the Dookhan and Farak lab scandals?
Gordon continues the same theme that emerged from those scandals: the Commonwealth must ensure the integrity and reliability of its forensic process.
After Annie Dookhan and Sonja Farak falsified or tampered with drug-testing evidence, Massachusetts vacated more than 40,000 convictions. Gordon reinforces the lesson learned from those events — that forensic shortcuts, even well-intentioned ones, undermine justice.
The decision strengthens safeguards against “assembly-line prosecutions,” ensuring that defendants are convicted only on reliable, verifiable evidence.
Q9: What should defense attorneys do differently after Gordon?
Defense counsel in Massachusetts drug cases should:
Identify the actual testing analyst early in discovery.
Track laboratory turnover—especially in older cases.
Preserve confrontation objections on the record at trial.
Move for Exclusion and perhaps a Required Finding if the Commonwealth cannot produce the testing witness.
Educate judges and juries that lab results are not self-authenticating.
In complex trafficking cases, counsel should also consider hiring independent forensic experts to review the raw data and replicate the testing.
Q10: What can prosecutors do to comply with the new rule?
The SJC acknowledged that Gordon creates logistical challenges for prosecutors and labs, but constitutional rights come first. Prosecutors must:
Track which analyst tested each exhibit;
Secure their presence for trial or record their testimony by deposition;
Avoid introducing lab reports or summaries unless the author testifies; and
Train chemists to distinguish between raw-data analysis and testimonial conclusions.
Q11: Why does the Court say this is about “confrontation,” not hearsay?
The confrontation right is broader than ordinary hearsay law. Even if an analyst’s notes or certificates might fit a hearsay exception, they are testimonial because they were created specifically for criminal prosecution. That makes them subject to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that a defendant may confront and cross-examine every witness whose statements are used to prove guilt.
When a reviewing chemist relays another’s results, the defendant loses that opportunity. Cross-examining the surrogate cannot expose the original analyst’s potential errors, contamination, or bias. The SJC concluded that this deprivation violates both the federal and Massachusetts constitutions.
Q12: What does this mean for defendants right now?
If you are charged with a Massachusetts drug offense, this ruling gives your defense team powerful tools:
To challenge the lab evidence before trial;
To exclude substitute-chemist testimony; and
To argue insufficiency of the evidence if the Commonwealth cannot prove the drug’s identity through admissible testimony.
For many defendants, that could mean the difference between a felony conviction and a case that collapses before trial.
Q13: What should I do if I’m facing drug charges based on lab results?
Do not assume the lab report is unbeatable evidence. Speak with an experienced Massachusetts criminal-defense lawyer immediately.
Your attorney can:
Examine whether the Commonwealth’s chemist personally tested your evidence;
Determine if a confrontation violation occurred;
Move to suppress the lab results; and
Develop a full defense strategy attacking every link in the Commonwealth’s proof.
At Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we routinely challenge forensic evidence in Brockton and across Massachusetts. We know the lab systems, the chemists, and the case law — and we know how to protect your rights.
Closing
The Elana Gordon decision reminds everyone—from police officers to prosecutors—that constitutional rights do not bend for efficiency. In every Massachusetts drug case, the Commonwealth must prove its evidence lawfully, through witnesses who can be cross-examined in open court.
If your case rests on a lab report or a chemist who never took the stand, the evidence may not be admissible at all. The lawyers at Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP are ready to review your case, challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and fight for your freedom.
Call our Brockton criminal defense team today to schedule a confidential consultation.