Smith v. Arizona
Issues
Is the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause violated when a testifying expert uses a nontestifying expert’s notes as the basis for their opinion when a defendant has not subpoenaed the nontestifying expert or otherwise had an opportunity to cross examine them?
This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is violated when the State employs an expert who uses another expert’s notes as the basis of their own opinion. Jason Smith argues that the Confrontation Clause forbids the introduction of testimonial statements for their truth from expert witnesses whom a defendant has not had the opportunity to cross-examine, and that the testifying expert’s testimony in his case relied on the nontestifying expert’s testimonial notes and conclusions. Arizona argues that the Confrontation Clause allows experts to testify using facts that are not otherwise admissible when the facts are not submitted for their truth, and that the nontestifying expert’s notes in Smith’s case were not testimonial because they were not created for the purpose of testifying and lacked formality. The outcome of this case has serious implications for defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights and prosecutors’ ability to pursue cases that require forensics.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst’s statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert’s opinion, and (b) the defendant did not independently seek to subpoena the analyst.
The Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution provides defendants with the right to “be confronted with the witnesses against [them],” allowing them to challenge the validity of the testimony before a jury.
Additional Resources
- Sam Curry, Smith v. Arizona: Yuma Case Sets the Stage for Long-Awaited Review of the Confrontation Clause, Arizona State Law Journal (November 23, 2023).
- Phil Dixon, Substitute Analyst Testimony and Smith v. Arizona, North Carolina Criminal Law (October 17, 2023).
- Morgan Fischer, Do Absent Experts Violate 6th Amendment ‘Confrontation Clause’? This Drug Case May Decide., Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (October 26, 2023).
- Renee Romo, Supreme Court to Hear Appeal Over Expert Testimony in Yuma Drug Case, Cronkite News (Oct. 2, 2023).