“I get that there are many ways to skin the evidentiary cat, but this case just seems to fall on the wrong line of it,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
Arizona charged Jason Smith with multiple drug-related offenses. Smith was at his father’s home when Yuma County Narcotics Force officers arrived to search the premises. In a shed on the property, officers found what they suspected was marijuana, cannabis wax, methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
During his trial, Smith maintained that he was only on the property to check on his sick father, who died before the trial started.
Arizona’s case against Smith included an expert analysis of the substances found on the property; however, the expert who testified against Smith was not the same expert who analyzed the evidence.
Forensic analyst Elizabeth Rast conducted the tests on evidence found at Smith’s father’s home. However, by the time of Smith’s trial, Rast had left the crime lab. Arizona asked another analyst, Greg Longoni, to be a substitute expert for Rast during the trial.
Longoni testified about the crime lab standards and procedures that Rast conducted, including referring to Rast’s notes about her analysis. Longoni did not conduct any of the testing described in the testimony himself.
A jury ruled against Smith, unconvinced that his presence at the home was purely coincidental. Smith appealed the ruling, claiming his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by Longoni’s testimony. He argues that not being able to cross-examine the analyst who conducted the drug testing denied him his confrontation clause right to be confronted by the witness against him.
“The state here made a strategic choice to make Rast a witness against Smith, and in doing so, it elicited Rast's statements from Longoni,” Hari Santhanam, an attorney with Perkins Coie representing Smith, said. “When it did so, it was required to present Rast for cross-examination. Its failure to do so violated Smith's confrontation right.”
There seemed to be broad agreement during the 90-minute oral argument session that Longoni presented testimonial evidence from Rast in violation of the confrontation clause.
“Once you just give someone else's testimony and it is the only basis for your opinion, then it's really you being a conduit,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
While the justices seemed to agree that Longoni’s testimony violated the Sixth Amendment, there was disagreement on where the line should be drawn.
For Gorsuch, the limit was any analysis of findings that were not his own.
“It's either personal knowledge, an industry standard, or a hypothetical would be all OK,” the Trump appointee said. “The line is saying, I am sitting here telling you what Ms. Rast did for the truth of that?”
Much of that debate centered around Rast’s notes. Justice Amy Coney Barrett tried to create a distinction between general notes and what’s included in an affidavit. Justice Elena Kagan said the qualification of the notes would depend on the facts.
“It must depend on the facts as to whether the notes are sufficiently closely tied to the report to fall within the same umbrella or not,” the Obama appointee said. “I mean, there are some notes that wouldn't and some notes that would.”
Justice Clarence Thomas’ prior writing on the topic was suggested by multiple justices as a test for these cases. In Williams v. Illinois, Thomas upheld a conviction, finding that the statements were offered for their truth and that the confrontation clause only barred formal testimonial statements.
“Why shouldn't we adopt the test that Justice Thomas has been advocating in his opinions since White?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.
Arizona tried to convince the court to rule in its favor by suggesting a ruling for Smith would greatly expand the reach of the confrontation clause.
“Petitioner encourages the court to look well beyond the unique facts of this case, and he sets his sights instead on a far-reaching new rule without any real workable limiting principle,” the state’s principal Deputy Solicitor General Alexander Samuels said. “We don't think the confrontation clause requires the anomalous results that would result from petitioner's rule.""
| PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog; |
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/47049136857587929
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices.
Lawyer Radha Natarajan;
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.
