Hemphill v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 2022 · Evidence

EvidenceConfrontation Clausetestimonial hearsayopening the doorSixth AmendmentConfrontation ClauseCrawfordtestimonial hearsay

Facts

At Hemphill's murder trial, he pursued a third-party culpability defense and elicited undisputed testimony that police found a 9-millimeter cartridge on Nicholas Morris's nightstand. Morris was outside the United States and unavailable to testify. Over Hemphill's hearsay and Crawford objections, the trial court admitted portions of Morris's plea allocution to a .357-revolver possession charge, reasoning that Hemphill had 'opened the door' by creating a misleading impression that Morris possessed the murder weapon. The State then used that plea allocution to argue that Morris possessed a .357 revolver, not the gun used in the killing.

Issue

Whether the Sixth Amendment permits a trial court to admit unconfronted testimonial hearsay against a criminal defendant because the defendant's evidence or argument allegedly 'opened the door' by creating a misleading impression. More specifically, the question was whether Morris's plea allocution could be admitted under New York's Reid rule without violating Hemphill's confrontation right.

Rule

The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements by a witness who does not appear at trial unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination, subject only to exceptions established at the founding. A state evidentiary rule that allows admission of testimonial hearsay because it is deemed reasonably necessary to correct a misleading impression is not a mere procedural rule and cannot override that constitutional guarantee.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a murder trial in Cleveland, Devon Price argues that Omar Vega committed the shooting. On cross-examination of a detective, Devon elicits that police found shell casings in Omar's garage matching the caliber used in the crime. Omar has moved abroad and is unavailable, and the prosecution seeks to introduce Omar's prior plea-hearing transcript admitting possession of a different firearm, arguing Devon created a misleading impression.

Should the trial court admit the plea-hearing transcript over Devon's Confrontation Clause objection?

Explanation. The majority held that testimonial statements from an absent witness may not be admitted unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine, absent founding-era exceptions. A state 'opening the door' rule cannot override that guarantee simply because the judge thinks the defense created a misleading impression. (Derived from Hemphill v. New York (n.d.).)