Smith v. Arizona
602 U.S. 779 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an expert witness conveys an absent analyst's testimonial statements to support their own opinion, and those statements provide that support only if they are true, the statements are admitted for the truth of the matter asserted and are subject to the Confrontation Clause.
Facts:
- Arizona law enforcement officers executed a search warrant on a property and found Jason Smith inside a shed.
- Officers also found a large quantity of substances that appeared to be drugs and related paraphernalia.
- The State sent the seized items to a crime lab for scientific analysis.
- A forensic analyst, Elizabeth Rast, performed tests on the items.
- Rast prepared typed notes and a signed report concluding that the items contained usable quantities of methamphetamine, marijuana, and cannabis.
- Prior to Smith's trial, Rast ceased working at the lab.
Procedural Posture:
- Jason Smith was charged with various drug offenses in an Arizona state trial court.
- At Smith's jury trial, the State presented the testimony of substitute expert Greggory Longoni regarding the analysis performed by absent analyst Elizabeth Rast.
- The jury convicted Smith.
- Smith, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing that the admission of Longoni's testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals, with the State of Arizona as appellee, rejected Smith's challenge and affirmed the conviction.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Confrontation Clause permit the prosecution to introduce an absent forensic analyst’s testimonial statements through a substitute expert witness who presents them as the basis for their own independent opinion?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kagan
No. When an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements in support of his opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth. The State's argument that such statements are admitted only to show the basis of the expert's opinion is unpersuasive, as the jury cannot evaluate the testifying expert's opinion without first evaluating the truth of the underlying assertions made by the absent analyst. The usefulness of the absent analyst's statements to the prosecution is entirely dependent on their truth, which is what supplies the predicate for the testifying expert's opinion. To allow a substitute expert to serve as a conduit for an absent analyst's testimonial findings would create an easy end-run around the Confrontation Clause and render the Court's holdings in Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming a dead letter. The case is remanded for the state court to determine in the first instance whether the absent analyst's statements were testimonial.
Concurring in part - Justice Thomas
Yes, the absent analyst's statements come into evidence for their truth, but the dispositive question is whether those statements were testimonial. I write separately to reiterate that the 'testimonial' inquiry should not focus on the 'primary purpose' of the statements. Instead, the correct inquiry under the Confrontation Clause is whether the statements are contained in 'formalized testimonial materials,' such as affidavits or depositions, that possess the requisite solemnity. The Court should remand for the Arizona court to determine if Rast's notes and report have the formality and solemnity to qualify as testimonial.
Concurring in part - Justice Gorsuch
Yes, when an expert presents another's statements as the 'basis' for his own opinion, he is offering those statements for their truth. However, I do not join the Court's discussion in Part III regarding when a statement might be 'testimonial.' That issue is not properly before the Court and may have been forfeited below. Furthermore, the 'primary purpose' test for determining if a statement is testimonial may be an artificial limitation on the confrontation right, and its application raises many unanswered and confusing questions.
Concurring in the judgment - Justice Alito
I agree that the judgment should be vacated, but I disagree with the majority's reasoning. The majority's holding that all basis evidence is necessarily offered for its truth is a needless and crippling wound on modern evidence law, such as Federal Rule of Evidence 703, and threatens to resurrect the obsolete and cumbersome practice of using hypothetical questions for experts. Juries are capable of following limiting instructions that basis evidence should only be used to evaluate an expert's opinion, not for its truth. However, in this specific case, the substitute expert, Longoni, went beyond permissible bounds and testified directly to the truth of Rast's work, making his testimony inadmissible hearsay and implicating the Confrontation Clause under existing rules without needing to create a new, broad constitutional prohibition.
Analysis:
This decision resolves the confusion created by the fractured opinion in Williams v. Illinois by establishing a clear rule that an expert cannot act as a conduit for an absent analyst's testimonial statements under the guise of 'basis of opinion' evidence. It firmly rejects the 'not for the truth' rationale in this context, strengthening defendants' Confrontation Clause rights in cases involving forensic evidence. The ruling forces prosecutors to either produce the analyst who conducted the testing for cross-examination or structure an alternative expert's testimony in a way that does not rely on conveying the truth of the absent analyst's testimonial findings, such as by using hypotheticals.
