Seated from left are Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito and Elena Kagan. Standing from left are Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Credit: Fred Schilling/Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
In September, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Smith v. Arizona, which requires the court to reconsider its precedents on the admissibility of forensic evidence under the Confrontation Clause. As numerous courts and commentators have observed, the court’s decisions, especially its 4-1-4 decision in Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012), have left the law muddled. Will Smith provide clarity?
In Williams, the court addressed a question that Justice Samuel Alito, for the plurality, put this way: does Crawford “bar[] an expert from expressing an opinion based on facts about a case that have been made known to the expert but about which the expert is not competent to testify?”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
