Smith v. Arizona
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Smith v. Arizona and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Smith v. Arizona.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the use of a substitute expert to convey the findings of an absent analyst violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The Court vacated and remanded the case, focusing on whether the statements were admitted for their truth. The case was sent back to the state court to address the testimonial nature of the statements.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Smith v. Arizona.
The Court held that when an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements in support of their opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, they come into evidence for their truth.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Smith v. Arizona. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Confrontation of Witnesses is relevant to Smith v. Arizona
The case centers on whether the use of a substitute expert to convey the substance of another analyst's work violates the defendant's Confrontation Clause rights.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Smith argued that the State's use of a substitute expert to convey the substance of Rast's materials violated his Confrontation Clause rights.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Smith v. Arizona that support the summary and concepts above.
Truth is everything when it comes to the kind of basis testimony presented here.
The parties agree that Smith's confrontation claim can succeed only if Rast's statements came into evidence for their truth.
The testimonial issue focuses on the 'primary purpose' of the statement.
