Supreme Court· 6/21/2024

Smith v. Arizona

Citations

602 U.S. 779

Oral argument

Argued
89 min recording
Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that admission of testimony from a lab analyst who neither performed nor observed the testing, and who relied only on another analyst’s report, violated the Confrontation Clause
advising that, when analyzing Confrontation Clause challenges, “the court will need to consider exactly which of the [testifying analyst’s] statements are at issue.”
observing that “no single rationale for affirmance garnered a majority” in Williams
reiterating that the Confrontation Clause “bars the admission at trial of an absent witness’s statements—however trustworthy a judge might think them—unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior chance to subject her to cross- examination”
describing how “federal constitutional rights are not typically defined—expanded or contracted—by reference to non-constitutional bodies of law”
explaining the Confrontation Clause applies only to “testimonial hearsay,” and “those two issues are separate from each other”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Elana Kagan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

54 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.