The Supreme Court is hearing oral argument on Jan. 10 over how the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution limits testimony in criminal cases.
Smith v. Arizona focuses on the amendment’s Confrontation Clause, which states that criminal defendants have the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
The petitioner, Jason Smith, was charged with drug-related offenses in 2019, later convicted by an Arizona jury, and sentenced to four years in prison. His trial included testimony from a forensic scientist named Greggory Longoni, who spoke about drug testing Elizabeth Rast, a scientist at the same lab, conducted on items from Mr. Smith’s shed.
Because Ms. Rast didn’t testify, but Mr. Longoni spoke about her reports, Mr. Smith contended that the trial sidestepped his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. The trial court rejected his request for an acquittal, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed that rejection.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to take on the case, which Mr. Smith argues could resolve a topic that has divided the nation’s highest court and other courts in the United States. More specifically, the Supreme Court has agreed to review whether the Confrontation Clause permits a substitute expert’s testimony to convey a non-testifying expert’s testimonial statements on two conditions.
The Arguments
First, the justices are considering whether the substitute expert offers their own independent testimony “and the analyst’s statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert’s opinion.” That first question refers to a “not-for-the-truth” rationale outlined by a prior Supreme Court decision in 2012.
Second, the justices are considering whether the defendant independently subpoenaed the analyst, which Mr. Smith didn’t do in his case.
The Supreme Court addressed the Confrontation Clause in 2012 when it ruled that an expert witness in a rape case could speak to DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts without violating the Sixth Amendment.
More than a decade later, Mr. Smith argues, courts are divided over the issue in part due to the “fractured” decision in Williams v. Illinois, meaning the justices should once again address the issue. Penned by Justice Samuel Alito, the opinion in Williams was joined by just four justices while another four justices, led by Justice Elena Kagan, dissented. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate opinion concurring with Justice Alito’s judgment but for a different reason.
“This Court should grant review to address the confusion and divide among lower courts over the viability of the not-for-the-truth rationale for admitting substitute expert testimony and reaffirm that a defendant bears no burden to subpoena the prosecution’s absent analysts under the Confrontation Clause,” Mr. Smith argued in his petition to the court.
Meanwhile, the state of Arizona argues that Mr. Smith overstates the split among lower courts and that his case isn’t a good vehicle for deciding the issue.
“First, this case is a poor vehicle in which to revisit Williams because the concerns voiced by the dissent in Williams were not a factor in Smith’s case, and the key issues at trial were not impacted by the analyst’s testimony,” the state wrote in its brief.
“Second, in an unpublished decision, the Arizona Court of Appeals correctly rejected Smith’s confrontation challenge based on Williams and the facts presented at trial.”
Although the U.S. government isn’t suing or being sued, it offered the court a brief saying the case should be remanded to a lower court.
“Although it is permissible for a testifying forensic expert to rely on data from someone else’s performance of discrete and circumscribed tasks, Longoni’s testimony here lacked safeguards and requires more scrutiny in the state courts,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and other attorneys said in their amicus brief.
From The Epoch Times
