Supreme Court hears Smith v. Arizona over use of substitute expert to relay lab analyst’s statements

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard argument in Smith v. Arizona, No. 22899, a case testing whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation right is violated when the prosecution presents a substitute expert who conveys the out‑of‑court statements of the lab analyst who actually tested the evidence.

Petitioner's counsel told the justices that the state used substitute expert Gregory Longoni to convey statements from lab analyst Elizabeth Rast’s report and notes and that Longoni “had no personal knowledge of the testing that Rast performed.” Counsel argued those statements were testimonial because they were prepared “for the primary purpose of creating evidence to use against Smith” and therefore, by the Sixth Amendment, Smith was entitled to confront Rast in court.

Several justices pressed petitioner on whether admitting an expert’s opinion…