US Supreme Court rules in favor of Arizona man over expert testimony
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of an Arizona man who was convicted of drug crimes, clarifying defendants' Sixth Amendment rights about expert witnesses, but sent his case back to a Yuma County court to resolve an outstanding issue.
The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees those accused of crimes the opportunity "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
A jury found Jason Smith guilty of possession of marijuana for sale and possession of methamphetamine, cannabis and drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to four years in prison in 2021.
Smith asked for a new trial, claiming the state had violated the confrontation clause by allowing an expert witness to testify on forensic evidence prepared by another expert who never appeared in court.
Drug evidence seized in Smith's case was tested by an Arizona Department of Public Safety forensic scientist, but the results of those tests were presented at trial by a different DPS scientist.
In the courts: Arizona court affirms sanctions on Mark Finchem over 2022 election lawsuit
The trial court and the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Smith's claim and denied his request for a new trial. The Arizona Supreme Court also denied Smith's petition for review.
Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said that the confrontation clause applies in witness scenarios like the one in Smith's case, where an out-of-court statement is presented for its truth.
"Our holding today follows from all this court has held about the confrontation clause’s application to forensic evidence," Kagan wrote. "A state may not introduce the testimonial out-of-court statements of a forensic analyst at trial, unless she is unavailable and the defendant has had a prior chance to cross-examine her."
In Smith's case, the court expert relayed out-of-court statements from the absent scientist not just to support his opinion but as truth, satisfying an element necessary to trigger the confrontation clause, the opinion concluded.
The outstanding issue in Smith's case is whether the absent DPS scientist's statements were "testimonial," meaning they were "prepared for the primary purpose of accusing a targeted individual," according to U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Kagan said that was a question best left to the Arizona trial court.
Have a news tip? Reach the reporter at jjenkins@arizonarepublic.com or 812-243-5582. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @JimmyJenkins.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: US Supreme Court rules in favor of Arizona man over Sixth Amendment
