Smith v. Arizona

In this case, the lower court allowed a government expert to provide evidence regarding a lab test to support the conviction of a defendant on drug charges. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed an amicus brief with the NACDL urging the Supreme Court to hold that such testimony violates the Confrontation Clause by depriving the defendant of an opportunity to cross-examine the person who conducted the lab test. Our brief argued that the criminal legal system will not face an undue burden if the Court ruled that the Confrontation Clause is triggered in such circumstances. First, Petitioner’s construction of the confrontation right is already successfully administered in a number of states and has not proved unmanageable. Second, criminal trials already constitute a very small fraction of criminal prosecutions, and this fraction is no different in those states that already require the authoring analyst to testify in these circumstances. Third, any burdens on the prosecution can often be minimized through stipulations.

The Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, that when an expert conveys an absent lab analyst’s statements in support of the expert’s opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth, and implicate the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause.