The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the introduction of “testimonial hearsay” evidence against the defendant in a criminal trial. “Hearsay” evidence is any evidence of an out-of-court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter stated.[1] In Smith v. Arizona, decided on June 21, 2024, the Court ruled that the Confrontation Clause of the federal Constitution prohibited the use of an absent-from-court lab worker’s notes on a specific project, if they are intended to be used in court as evidence against a criminal defendant, despite the fact a court rule of evidence would allow that use to show the factual basis of an expert witness’s admissible opinion testimony.
Comment: The Confrontation Clause of the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment reads as follows:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him. . . .
In most American courts, the rules of evidence allow “expert” witnesses to state their relevant opinions in sworn testimony before the court, even when the evidence of the factual basis for their opinions is otherwise inadmissible.[2] Here, the Court simply reaffirmed its understanding of the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause as overriding procedural rules of evidence to the extent they allow the admission of “testimonial hearsay.”
Dan Rhea
[1] See e.g. Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c).
[2] See, e.g., Federal Rule of Evidence 703.
RECENT RULINGS 