The question
Whether the Confrontation Clause bars the prosecution from introducing an absent forensic analyst's statements through a testifying expert who relies on them as the basis for the expert's own opinion.
Smith v. Arizona
What the Court decided
The Court held that when a testifying expert conveys an absent analyst's out-of-court statements to support the expert's opinion, and those statements support the opinion only if they are true, the statements are admitted for their truth. A state evidentiary rule labeling such statements "basis" evidence rather than evidence offered for its truth does not control the constitutional inquiry, which courts must conduct independently. Because the absent analyst's factual statements were admitted for their truth and the defendant had no chance to cross-examine her, the Confrontation Clause was implicated. The Arizona court's contrary ruling could not stand, and a remaining question was left open on remand.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Kagan, joined by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson, Thomas, Gorsuch
The Court held that an out-of-court statement conveyed by a testifying expert to support the expert's opinion is offered for its truth when the statement supports the opinion only if true. State evidentiary rules authorizing admission for the limited purpose of showing the basis of the opinion do not control; courts must independently determine whether a statement is admitted for its truth. Here the absent analyst's factual statements were admitted for their truth, the defendant could not cross-examine her, and the Confrontation Clause was therefore implicated. Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson joined in full; Thomas and Gorsuch joined as to Parts I, II, and IV.
Concurring in part
Thomas, writing alone
Thomas joined the Court's opinion as to Parts I, II, and IV and filed an opinion concurring in part, declining to join the remainder of the Court's reasoning.
Concurring in part
Gorsuch, writing alone
Gorsuch joined the Court's opinion as to Parts I, II, and IV and filed an opinion concurring in part, declining to join the remainder of the Court's reasoning.
Concurring in the judgment
Alito, joined by Roberts
Alito, joined by Roberts, filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, agreeing with the result but not with the Court's reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that when an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements to support the expert's opinion, and the statements support the opinion only if true, the statements come into evidence for their truth.
Source: syllabus, Held
State evidentiary rules that authorize admitting such statements to show the basis of an expert's opinion do not control whether the statement is admitted for its truth; courts must conduct an independent analysis.
Source: syllabus, Held
Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, joined in full by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, and joined by Thomas and Gorsuch as to Parts I, II, and IV.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Thomas and Gorsuch each filed opinions concurring in part.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Roberts joined.
Source: syllabus, lineup