Smith v. Arizona

The National District Attorneys Association submitted an amicus brief supporting the state’s position, emphasizing the need for flexibility in forensic testimony to avoid disruptions in trials due to the unavailability of original analysts. We argued that practical implications should be considered to ensure that critical forensic evidence can be presented effectively.

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Smith, holding that when an expert conveys an absent lab analyst’s statements to support their opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth. The Court vacated the Arizona Court of Appeals decision and remanded the case back to the state court to determine whether the out of court statements made by the expert were testimonial.