U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Arizona drug possession case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in an Arizona-based case that seeks clarification of a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.

The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees those accused of crimes the right to a speedy trial, in which they shall have the opportunity "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Jason Smith was found guilty by a jury of possession of marijuana for sale and possession of methamphetamine, cannabis and drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to four years in prison in 2021.

According to court records, Smith asked for a new trial, claiming the state had violated the confrontation clause in its case against him by allowing an expert witness to testify on forensic evidence prepared by another expert who did not testify in the case. Drug evidence seized in Smith's case was tested by an Arizona Department of Public Safety forensic scientist, but the results of those tests were presented at trial by a different DPS scientist.

The trial court and the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Smith's claims and denied his request for a new trial. The Arizona Supreme Court denied Smith's petition for review as well.

In his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Smith argued that a previous Supreme Court decision, Williams v. Illinois, left unresolved a scenario that was specific to his case: where an expert witness is "asked for his independent opinion about underlying testimonial reports that were not themselves admitted into evidence."

In October, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

Speaking in oral arguments before the high court on Wednesday, Smith's attorney, Hari Santhanam, said Smith was denied his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. Instead of stating his opinions, the substitute expert was merely reciting the work of the original analyst, Santhanam said.

"We're not suggesting that an expert witness cannot rely on others," Santhanam said. "It's the moment when they introduce the testimonial statement of someone else where the confrontation right is implicated."

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that allowing cross-examination of the substitute analyst "could be quite effective" in showing the weakness of the state's case."

Faulting Smith's defense team at trial, Justice Samuel Alito said there were opportunities for the defense to question the testimony, but they did not do so.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to side with Santhanam's arguments.

"Because once you just give someone else's testimony, and it is the only basis for your opinion, then it's really you being a conduit," she said.

Alexander Samuels, deputy solicitor general with the Arizona Attorney General's Office, argued that the substitute analyst was not a conduit for the initial expert but formed his own independent conclusions.

But Sotomayor was skeptical of the state's argument, citing instances where the witness could not answer questions without reviewing his colleague's report.

An opinion from the high court is expected by the end of June.

Have a news tip? Reach the reporter at jjenkins@arizonarepublic.com or 812-243-5582. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter @JimmyJenkins.

Support local journalism. Subscribe to azcentral.com today.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: U.S. Supreme Court hears Arizona case about expert witness testimony