Smith v. Arizona (22-899)

argument 22-899

Smith v. Arizona

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 28m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central Sixth Amendment issue being argued in Smith v. Arizona?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear an argument this morning in case twenty two eight nine nine,

Unknown 0:04

Smith versus Arizona. Mr. Sunthelman. Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Jason Smith was denied his Sixth Amendment confrontation right. When the state used a substitute expert, Gregory Longoni, to convey the out-of-court testimonial statements of the witness who actually analyzed the evidence in his case, Elizabeth Rast. Longoni had no personal knowledge of the testing that Rast performed. Uh i uh uh and in terms of what Rast did, Longoni Uh uh Longoni had no personal knowledge of what Rast uh did in terms of her testing. Um but what he did do was he conveyed Rast's statements from her own documents, uh from her report and notes, where he conveyed uh specifically the tests that she performed, the specific items that she tested, the procedures that she used, and when he purported to uh

Unknown 1:01

give his own opinions. Lungoni was actually reciting verbatim the same statements that Rass made in her report to set forth her conclusions. Rass statements were testimonial because any reasonable objective person would understand that She prepared those statements for the primary purpose of creating evidence to use against Smith in his prosecution.

Why does the petitioner claim that Rast’s statements are testimonial?

Unknown 1:25

The state's request in this case at PETAP 127A specifically identified Smith, the charges against him, that trial had been set in his case. And as the record shows at PETAP 99A, this the state's attorney actually coordinated with Rast on her test. Yeah. Uh and it is no wonder that in this case that the United States agrees that the judgment below cannot stand. Uh The Court of Appeals nonetheless found that Lungoni's testimony was permissible. And it did so applying the legal fiction that an expert may state the basis for his underlying conclusions and opinions under Rule 703 without offering that basis for the truth. Uh that legal fiction as this uh as the plurality in this court recognized in Williams is unrealistic.

Unknown 2:16

It's unrealistic to expect that a jury such as Smith would understand that fiction. And in this case, uh for the jury to have understood uh what Longoni's opinions were and to have evaluated those opinions, it necessarily had to have considered the truth of those underlying statements that were offered to support them. The state here made a strategic choice to make Rast a witness against Smith. And in doing so it it uh elicited RAS statements from through Lungoni, and when it did so it was required to present RAST for cross examination. Its failure to do so violated Smith's confrontation right. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:59

Uh would you take a step back and um explain why you uh first think that this is that the is is testimonial and two, how is it different from w the uh uh report in Williams?

Unknown 3:15

Sure. Rast's statements here are testimonial because any reasonable, objective person would understand that they were prepared for the primary and indeed sole exclusive purpose of creating evidence for Smith's prosecution. Again, that that's that's set out from the State's initial request identifying Rast, the charges against him, the trial had been set, she coordinated with the State's attorney, and it was all general. Through a formalized process in which she prepared notes and a report all on typewritten uh DPS letterhead bearing the seal of the DPS. And it it bears emphasis that these are documents that were served as part of discovery in this case uh you know to prove the facts that the prosecution was going to put on.

Unknown 4:01

So all of those circumstances um uh uh meet The primary evidentiary purpose test, they meet the targeted individual test, and they also meet any requirement of solemnity that's required of RAST.

John G. Roberts 4:16

If we're I was just going to ask, um, why isn't it enough for the Defense Counsel uh to be able to uh ask Longoni about what happened in the lab? And he's gonna have to say, uh you know, I don't know. Uh well then you're just relying on, you know, what something somebody told you, right? Well uh W what basis do you have for that? How do you know that was done?