Smith v. Arizona FAQs: Expert Testimony and the Confrontation Clause in Criminal Trials

In Smith v. Arizona, the Supreme Court considered how the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause applies to an expert witness who presents an absent lab analyst's findings to support their own opinion. The Court held that when an expert offers an opinion based on an out-of-court statement, and that statement supports the opinion only if it is true, then the statement has been introduced for its truth and is subject to the Confrontation Clause. Section 23 “Rights of the Accused” of the North Carolina Constitution sets forth the defendant’s right to confront accusers.

The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause in the United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to confront the witnesses against them. This right to confrontation is exercised through cross-examination, often through a criminal defense lawyer, which allows defendants to challenge the reliability of witness testimony. The US Constitution is applied to the states, including the state of North Carolina, through the 14th Amendment.

The Confrontation Clause applies to forensic reports. For example, in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Court held that introducing a lab analyst's report without the analyst present to testify violated a defendant's confrontation rights. Similarly, in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, the Court held that introducing a lab analyst's written findings through the testimony of a different analyst violated the Confrontation Clause. The Court reasoned that the substitute analyst could not be effectively cross-examined about the testing process and results.

In Williams v. Illinois, the Court considered a case where one lab analyst testified about the findings of another lab analyst, who was not called as a witness, to support thier own expert opinion. The Court disagreed on whether this testimony implicated the Confrontation Clause because the out-of-court statements were introduced by the testifying expert to explain the basis for their opinion, and not for the truth of the matter asserted.

The Court in Smith rejected the argument that an expert's reliance on testimonial statements for the "basis" of their opinion means the statements are not being offered for their truth. The Court explained that a statement offered for the "basis" of an expert opinion is only relevant and "useful" if it is true. This is because the jury cannot determine whether the expert's opinion is credible without evaluating the truth of the statements on which it is based. If the jury does not believe the statements are true, the expert's opinion built upon them is, at best, problematic.

No. Smith doesn't prevent experts from relying on out-of-court materials like learned treatises, established laboratory protocols, bench notes, journals, or scientific studies because these materials typically don't have an evidentiary purpose and are not created with the intent to be used in a criminal trial. Defense counsel will necessarily need to be cautious to protect the record when litigating the issue of substitute analysts and the admissibility of the underlying lab reports.

Forensic experts can still testify about the general practices and procedures of their labs, their expertise in forensic techniques, or answer hypothetical questions that assume certain facts to be true. However, they cannot act as a "mouthpiece" for an absent analyst who performed the actual testing. Here is more information about criminal procedure and criminal law in North Carolina.

The Court vacated the Arizona Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case to consider whether the lab analyst's reports were "testimonial," which is a separate issue from whether a statement was introduced for its truth. The Court also instructed the Arizona Court of Appeals to determine exactly which of the lab analyst's statements were introduced at trial because the parties disputed whether the expert witness relied on the analyst's notes alone or if the final report was also part of the basis for their testimony.