Integrity | Practicality | Expertise 888-371-6011

Military Law Blog

Smith v. Arizona, ___ U.S. ___, 2024 (June 21, 2024).

Posted by Matthew Jubelt | Jul 15, 2024

Picture of the front of the building of the United States Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court

A recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Arizona, ___ U.S. ___, 2024 U.S. LEX-IS 2712 (June 21, 2024), will now make it more difficult for the military prosecutors to utilize surrogate experts in Government's prosecution of military personnel.  Historically, military prosecutions involving drugs, narcotics or D.N.A. will introduce the laboratory results in a trial without having the actual lab analyst present in court who produced the report.  The rules of evidence permit have historically permitted an expert to introduce hearsay into a prosecution where the out-of-court lab report was the basis of the expert's opinion.  However, on June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court held that this longstanding practice would now be subject to a Confrontation clause analysis meaning that practitioners could now hope to exclude such testimony by objecting to such hearsay as being "testimonial" and in violation of a defendant's rights under the U.S. Constitution's Confrontation clause, that being, an accused's right to confront his or her accusers.   

Be sure that the counsel you select to represent you knows the rules and how to protect your future. Contact our firm today

About the Author

Matthew Jubelt

Matthew G. Jubelt, Attorney & Counselor at Law | 114 Albany Street | Post Office Box 441 | Cazenovia, New York 13035 | [email protected] | tel. (315) 665-1902 | fax (315) 293-2644  Education Syracuse University College of Law, J.D., 2009 Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizens...

Integrity | Practicality | Expertise

Menu