Hemphill v. New York

The Supreme Court decided that a criminal defendant does not lose the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses simply by making arguments that “open the door” to otherwise inadmissible evidence. It said admitting an unavailable witness’s plea transcript over Hemphill’s objection violated that right.

Justice Sotomayor wrote the 8–1 opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett; Justice Alito concurred; Justice Thomas dissented.

Majority

Sotomayor

Roberts

Breyer

Alito

Kagan

Gorsuch

Kavanaugh

Barrett

Dissent

Thomas

The decision limits when prosecutors can use statements from witnesses who cannot be questioned in court. It affects defendants whose trial arguments could otherwise be used to introduce an absent witness’s prior statements.

The Court has finished this docket action. Courts handling criminal cases must apply the decision when considering whether an argument at trial permits evidence from an unavailable witness.

The Court said a defendant does not forfeit the right to confront witnesses merely by “opening the door” through arguments at trial.

Criminal defendants and prosecutors are affected when prosecutors seek to use statements from witnesses who are unavailable for questioning in court.

The Supreme Court has completed the case. Lower courts must follow its decision in similar criminal trials.