Washington TSRP Program - US Supreme Court rules on 6th amendment case in Smith v. Arizona

Log in

In Smith v. Arizona, the court rules that when an expert conveys an absent lab analyst’s statements in support of the expert’s opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth, and thus implicate the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause.
The court declined to opine on whether the out-of-court statements that the expert conveyed in this case were in fact testimonial because the state court did not decide that question. The court found the questioned to be assumed true in the lower court.

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software