A Confrontation Case
The Supreme Court has granted a petition in Smith v. Arizona. The outcome may be relevant for prosecutions of drug cases based on a urinalysis or DNA-involved cases.
Issue: Whether the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst’s statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert’s opinion, and (b) the defendant did not independently seek to subpoena the analyst.
See more at SCOTUSblog.
Prof. Friedman says, “Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Smith v. Arizona, No. 22-899, a case that might help provide some clarity much needed since the Court's decision in Williams v. Illinois.”
We say may because of how the prosecution usually presents urinalysis lab results at court-martial compared to what may have happened in Smith.
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.
Army Crim. L. Deskbook