Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779

Background

Jason Smith was charged in Arizona with drug-related offenses after law enforcement found him in possession of what appeared to be illegal drugs.
The forensic testing of the drugs was performed by analyst Elizabeth Rast, who documented her findings in notes and a signed lab report.
Before trial, Rast left her employment, so the prosecution presented expert testimony from another analyst, Greggory Longoni, who had not participated in the original testing but reviewed Rast’s records.
Longoni testified to the jury about Rast’s lab procedures and results, and then gave his own “independent opinion” based on those records, which matched Rast’s conclusions.
Smith argued that this surrogate testimony violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, as he could not cross-examine the original analyst, Rast.
The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Smith's claim, holding such surrogate expert testimony was permissible so long as the absent analyst’s statements were introduced only as the basis for the expert's opinion and not for their truth.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Substitute Expert Testimony Conveying Absent Analyst’s Statements	Smith: Surrogate expert’s recitation of Rast’s statements was offered for their truth and violated the Confrontation Clause	Arizona: Statements were only to show the basis of Longoni's independent opinion, not for their truth	Court held that such statements are, in fact, admitted for their truth if the expert's opinion relies on their truth, implicating the Confrontation Clause
Application of Evidentiary Rules (Rule 703) to Confrontation Clause Analysis	Smith: State evidentiary rules do not determine the scope of constitutional confrontation rights	Arizona: State evidence law allows such statements in only to evaluate the expert opinion	The Court: Constitutional rights are not defined by evidentiary rules; independent constitutional analysis is required
Whether the Out-of-Court Statements Were Testimonial	Not directly argued, but presumed testimonial for purposes of this phase	Arizona: Disputed whether statements were testimonial; argument raised too late according to Smith	Court remanded to the Arizona Court of Appeals to address whether Rast’s statements were testimonial
Requirement for Defendant to Subpoena the Absent Analyst	Smith: Right of confrontation imposes burden on prosecution to present its witnesses	Arizona (initially below): Smith could have called Rast if he wished to challenge the lab work	The Court: Defendant’s ability to subpoena is not a substitute for the right to confrontation; prosecution bears the burden

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements of absent witnesses unless unavailable and previously cross-examined)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Forensic lab reports are testimonial and the defendant must be able to confront the analyst)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (Surrogate analyst cannot testify to another analyst’s forensic findings in a criminal case)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (Only testimonial hearsay triggers the Confrontation Clause requirement)
Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211 (Defines hearsay as out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted)
Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409 (Confrontation Clause not implicated when out-of-court statement admitted for non-truth purpose)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (Court fractured on the use of expert testimony relying on non-testifying analyst’s report; plurality deemed such basis evidence not for its truth, while five justices disagreed)