← All Authorities
United States opinion and expert evidence

Smith v Arizona

No. 22-899 (2024)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2024
StatusBinding authority

Summary

The Confrontation Clause is violated when a substitute expert serves as a conduit for the testimonial statements or conclusions of an absent analyst.

Key Principle

Confrontation Clause violated when substitute expert conveys testimonial statements of absent analyst. Expert cannot serve as conduit for another's testimonial conclusions.

Area of Law

evidence

Related Cases

Warden v Bailey (2020) 103 NSWLR 207
IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300

Under UEA s 97, tendency evidence in sexual offence cases requires significant probative value but no striking similarity between the tendency and charged acts.

Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588

Expert opinion evidence is admissible only if based on specialised knowledge, and the expert must identify the facts and reasoning underlying the opinion.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Smith v Arizona and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Smith v Arizona