United States v. Williams (1971)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (en banc) · 1971 · Evidence

447 F.2d 1285 (5th Cir. 1971)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceexpert testimonyhearsayConfrontation Clausereasonable reliancevaluation expertcriminal evidencecross-examination

Facts

The indictment alleged that Williams caused Westec to sell oil and gas properties to conspirator-controlled corporations at prices above fair market value. To prove overvaluation, the Government called Thomas Jeffrey, an independent consulting petroleum engineer, to testify about the value of the Irving and Wilcrof properties. Jeffrey formed his opinions after personally inspecting the properties and consulting state production reports, core analyses, well records, pipeline run statements, and operator billing records, although many of the corporate records he used were not themselves introduced into evidence. Williams objected that Jeffrey's opinion rested on documents and business records not admitted at trial, but Jeffrey testified in person and was extensively cross-examined.

Issue

Whether the admission of an expert valuation witness's testimony in a criminal case violates the Sixth Amendment or the federal hearsay rule when the expert's opinion is based in part on records and data not themselves introduced into evidence.

Rule

The Confrontation Clause is satisfied when the expert witness appears at trial and is available for cross-examination, even if the expert relied on out-of-court materials. As a matter of federal evidence law, an expert's testimony need not be based solely on records admitted into evidence so long as the sources are of a type reasonably relied on by experts in forming opinions or inferences on the subject; in that circumstance, the expert's opinion is treated as evidence in its own right rather than hearsay in disguise.

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 federal fraud trial in Dallas, the prosecution calls Nora Feld, a forensic accountant, to testify that a chain of clinics was worth far less than the price paid in a related transaction. Feld reviewed internal ledgers, vendor invoices, and regional reimbursement summaries that were not admitted into evidence, and she also personally interviewed on-site managers and explained her valuation method before being cross-examined at length.

The defendant objects that admitting Feld's opinion violates the Sixth Amendment because the people who created the ledgers and summaries did not testify. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority treats confrontation and hearsay as distinct inquiries. For confrontation purposes, the core protection is the accused's opportunity to confront and probe the witness at trial. Because Feld testified live and was available for cross-examination, the Sixth Amendment is satisfied even though she relied on out-of-court materials.