Smith v. Arizona:  Expert’s reliance on another expert’s work for their opinion is “for the truth” and implicates Confrontation Clause

By Greg Mermelstein, Deputy Director & General Counsel, Missouri Public Defender When an expert witness testifies to an absent lab analyst’s factual assertions to support his own opinion, the absent analyst’s statements are being offered for “the truth of the matter asserted” under the Confrontation Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court held June 21 in Smith […]