Smith v. Arizona

Justia · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Jan 10, 2024.

Petitioner: Jason Smith.
Respondent: State of Arizona.

Advocates:

Hari Santhanam (for the Petitioner)
Eric J. Feigin (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting neither party)
Alexander W. Samuels (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In December 2019, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Jason Smith's father's property, which had multiple structures. They detected a strong odor of marijuana from a shed, where they found Smith and later discovered various drugs and paraphernalia. Smith was charged with multiple felonies related to drug possession. During the trial, a forensic scientist testified that the seized substances were indeed illegal drugs. Smith's defense argued he was merely at the property to care for his ill father and was not involved in any illegal activities. Smith was found guilty on several counts, including possession of marijuana for sale, and was sentenced to four years in prison.

Smith appealed the decision, claiming, among other things, that the admission of drug-analysis testimony violated his confrontation rights because the testifying expert relied on data generated by a non-testifying expert. The appellate court affirmed.

Question

Does the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permit the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst?

Personality traits high performance traders rely on during drawdowns