Crawford - Williams - Smith, The Confrontation Cases
The United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Arizona just ruled that “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.”
This is an extension of a long line of cases starting with Crawford v. Washington 541 U.S. 36 (2004) In Crawford, the Supreme Court reformulated the standard for determining when hearsay statements in criminal cases are permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
We hear about a lot of 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court decisions but there is a rare 9-0 vote that was just handed down in the case of Smith v. Arizona. The involved a conviction for drug possession. The Williams case was decided after Crawford but before Smith v. Arizona and I will discuss how Williams was unclear and led to the Smith decision.
T
The Facts in Smith v. Arizona
In the criminal defense case of Smith v. Arizona, the defendant, Jason Smith, objected to an expert witness who provided drug analysis testimony despite not conducting the drug test themselves. Smith’s argument was based on his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine the actual witness against him. He contended that a proxy or reader of the original analyst’s report could not serve as a substitute for the actual witness.
The state of Arizona had its counterarguments. The drug testing occurred after police executed a search warrant on property owned by Smith’s father, where they found substances believed to be methamphetamine and marijuana. These substances were initially tested by Elizabeth Rast, who would have qualified as an expert if she had testified. However, since she no longer worked for the state, another expert, Greggory Longoni, reviewed her work and provided his opinion.
Longoni, a qualified forensic scientist from the Department of Public Safety, testified that the substances were indeed methamphetamine and marijuana. The Arizona courts found this acceptable, reasoning that Longoni gave his independent opinion and that Smith had the opportunity to cross-examine him. The jury was aware that Longoni had not personally tested the substances and could consider this in evaluating his testimony.
However, Justice Kagan, in overturning the Arizona courts, highlighted that Longoni’s opinion was fundamentally based on accepting Rast’s unverified report. She pointed out that Longoni’s testimony relied on assumptions about Rast’s work, which had not been independently verified.
In essence, the case underscores the importance of the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses in criminal defense, emphasizing that assumptions and second-hand reports cannot replace direct testimony and cross-examination.
The Supreme Court Agreed 9-0 and Disagreed 5-4
Justice Thomas, Kagan, Gorsuch and Alito all joined in sending the case back to Arizona to review certain issues but their logic and the scope of the review varied. The short version of where they disagreed is in the application of what is deemed the “primary purpose” test.
The issue is the primary purpose of the Rast forensic lab report was for law enforcement INVESTIGATION or for ACTUAL PROSECUTION in court. The Court decision was that when the expert repeated the missing lab analyst’s statements (and those statements are useful only if the statements of Rast are actually true) the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is triggered. Justice Alito (and joined by Roberts) believed that the issue was not whether the other testimony was considered but that the in court expert Longoni, “stepped over the line and at times testified to the truth of the matter asserted”. He took information and gave it a stamp of approval without facts to support that and this is what triggered the 6th Amendment violation.
Williams v. Illinois Decision - The Decision that Didn't Decide
This decision is an extension of an earlier complicated ruling. In Williams v. Illinois is 567 U.S. 50 (2012), the Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of expert testimony regarding DNA evidence produced by a non-testifying analyst. That is very similar to Smith v. Arizona. The Supreme Court held that such testimony did NOT violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
There were 4 votes based on the concept that an earlier case on this topic (Crawford) was not violated because it testimony wasn’t being offered for its truth, but just to explain in general and as background, the expert’s opinion.
Four Justices to the opposite view and they thought that there was essentially no reason to relate the missing expert’s opinion except to endorse it and stamp it as true. Justice Thomas was the tie breaker. He voted against the defendant even though agreed with the defendant. Justice Thomas agreed that the reason for telling the jury what the missing person, missing witness thought was because the testifying expert was claiming it was true. Justice Thomas ruled against the defendant because he thought that the missing expert’s opinion was a type of statement that wasn’t formal. He believed that only “formal” statements (like statements made to police interrogation with the anticipation the statement might be used at trial) were subject to 6th Amendment protections.
The Takeaway
While Smith v. Arizona leaves a lot open, the 9-0 majority at least now accepts that . “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 author of this article, Daniel Horowitz is a State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization certified criminal defense specialist. He works in courtrooms throughout the United States and has been lead counsel in over 200 jury trials.