Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. 140

Background

In 2006 a stray 9‑mm bullet killed a child; police found a 9‑mm cartridge and .357 bullets in Nicholas Morris’s nightstand and initially charged Morris with murder.
The State later allowed Morris to plead guilty to possession of a .357 revolver (a different caliber than the murder weapon) in exchange for dismissal of the murder charge.
Years later Darrell Hemphill was indicted after his DNA matched a blue sweater found near the scene; at trial Hemphill blamed Morris (third‑party culpability).
Hemphill elicited uncontroverted testimony that 9‑mm ammunition had been found in Morris’s nightstand; Morris was unavailable to testify (he was outside the U.S.).
Over Hemphill’s Crawford objection, the trial court admitted parts of Morris’s plea allocution under New York’s People v. Reid “opening the door” rule to rebut Hemphill’s theory; Hemphill was convicted and state courts affirmed.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held the admission of Morris’s unconfronted, testimonial plea allocution violated the Sixth Amendment; the judgment was reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Hemphill's Argument	New York's Argument	Held
Whether admission of Morris’s plea allocution (testimonial hearsay) without cross‑examination violated the Sixth Amendment	Admission of the allocution was testimonial and, under Crawford, required the witness to be unavailable and previously cross‑examined; its admission deprived Hemphill of confrontation	Reid’s door‑opening rule allowed admission to correct a misleading impression created by Hemphill’s defense; this is a permissible response to defensive argument	The admission violated the Confrontation Clause; reliability cannot be substituted for cross‑examination and the judge may not admit testimonial hearsay simply because defense allegedly misled the jury
Whether Hemphill properly presented his federal Confrontation Clause claim to state courts	He timely and repeatedly objected at trial and argued the Sixth Amendment in state appellate briefs	The State contended Hemphill failed to fairly present the federal claim to the New York Court of Appeals	SCOTUS: Hemphill satisfied the presentation requirement; the Court may consider his federal arguments
Characterization of People v. Reid: procedural waiver rule vs substantive evidentiary exception to confrontation	Reid is a substantive evidentiary doctrine that cannot create a Confrontation Clause exception; judges may not assess testimonial reliability in place of cross‑examination	Reid is a procedural rule governing when a defendant may assert confrontation protections and is within states’ procedural flexibility	SCOTUS: Reid is substantive/evidentiary and cannot override Crawford’s prohibition on admitting testimonial hearsay when the declarant is unavailable and uncross‑examined
Availability of alternative safeguards and remedies (e.g., evidentiary rules, rule of completeness, harmless error)	Constitutional protection cannot be overridden by fairness concerns; other evidentiary tools suffice to prevent abuse	Without Reid prosecutors lack a tool to prevent selective, misleading presentation of evidence	SCOTUS: Other evidentiary rules (e.g., exclusion under rules like Rule 403) remain available; the Court did not decide completeness or harmless‑error here and remanded for state courts to assess prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (rejected Roberts reliability test; testimonial statements require prior cross‑examination)
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (earlier reliability‑based confrontation standard)
People v. Reid, 19 N.Y.3d 382 (N.Y. 2012) (New York door‑opening rule allowing responsive evidence to correct misleading impressions)
People v. Massie, 2 N.Y.3d 179 (N.Y. 2004) (formulation of “open the door” evidentiary doctrine)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (States may adopt reasonable procedural rules but cannot bypass confrontation requirements)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (declined to recognize new exceptions to the Confrontation Clause)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (trial judges may exclude evidence when probative value is substantially outweighed by prejudice)
Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586 (distinguished impeachment/prophylactic rules from constitutional exceptions)
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (rule of completeness described)
Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (state courts should first assess effect of erroneously admitted evidence)