The Confrontation Clause in Arizona Drug Crime Cases
The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution can play a large role in Arizona drug crime cases. Unfortunately, the rules surrounding the Confrontation Clause in these types of cases are neither clear nor simple. It’s essential that people who are charged with drug crimes in Arizona find experienced criminal defense attorneys who understand the nuances of the Confrontation Clause and how to protect the rights conferred by this clause to those who have been charged with crimes.
What Is the Confrontation Clause?
The Confrontation Clause is a section of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution that guarantees criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses who testify against them. The relevant part of the Sixth Amendment states that ”...in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
In a case that was decided 1895 called Mattox v. United States, the Supreme Court identified the three fundamental purposes of the Confrontation Clause as:
- Ensuring that witnesses would be required to testify under oath.
- Allowing defendants to question the witnesses who testify against them.
- Allowing jurors to evaluate the trustworthiness of a witness by observing their behavior.
What Is Hearsay Evidence?
Hearsay is a statement that was made outside of court that is offered by a party in a trial to prove the truth of what the statement asserts. In other words, the fact which an out-of-court statement is being used to prove is what determines whether a statement is hearsay.
To help this make a little more sense, let’s look at a hypothetical situation.
If a witness testifies at trial “Susan told me that John drives a red car”, it would be HEARSAY if it were being offered as evidence that John drives a red car. However, it would NOT be hearsay if this out-of-court statement by Susan was being offered as evidence that Susan knows John, that Susan has seen John’s car before, that Susan knows what type of car John drives, or anything else besides the fact that John drives a red car.
As a general rule, hearsay evidence, including both oral and written statements, is not admissible in a trial. However, the Arizona Rules of Evidence create many exceptions to this rule.
Here are a few of the most common exceptions to the prohibition on hearsay evidence:
- Present Sense Impression.
- Excited Utterance.
- Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition.
- Recorded Recollection.
- Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity (the “Business Records” exception).
- Public Records.
- Reputation Concerning Character.
- Judgment of a Previous Conviction.
Hearsay Evidence in Arizona Drug Crime Cases
In Arizona drug crime cases, the most important piece of evidence is almost always the drugs themselves. As part of the prosecution’s case, they will have to prove both the chemical composition of the substance they found, as well as the quantity. In other words, they have to prove what drug was involved and how much of the drug was involved.
For this reason, drugs involved in criminal cases will be tested in a lab to verify their identification. The Scientific Analysis Bureau of the Arizona Department of Public Safety provides this analysis to determine the amount and identity of the substance. Typically, a forensic scientist will run the test, create a lab report that states the results, and then testify in court to those results.
Where the prohibition on hearsay comes into play is when a different forensic scientist than the one who tested the substance is called to testify on the results shown in the lab report. Shouldn’t the lab report be considered an out-of-court statement that is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted (the results of the lab report)?
The answer is yes, in this situation, the lab report is hearsay evidence. However, it typically would be considered admissible hearsay based on the Business Records Exception.
The Confrontation Clause and the Admissibility of Hearsay
Even if hearsay evidence is admissible under a hearsay exception in the Arizona Rules of Evidence, the government is still bound to uphold the constitutional rights granted by the Confrontation Clause. A piece of evidence can fall into a category of admissible hearsay and still violate the Confrontation Clause by denying the criminal defendant their right to confront the witnesses against them. In these situations, the hearsay evidence would not be admissible.
So when can hearsay evidence be admitted without violating the Confrontation Clause? Unfortunately, there is not a clear answer to this question.
The Supreme Court of the United States is responsible for interpreting the Constitution and how it applies to specific cases. In 2004, in a case called Crawford vs. Washington, the Supreme Court decided that if a statement was "testimonial", then it could not be admitted as hearsay evidence unless the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. “Non-testimonial statements” were deemed not to be protected by the Confrontation Clause, and so they are permitted under the Crawford rule to be admitted as hearsay evidence.
The next obvious question is which statements are testimonial and which are non-testimonial. The Supreme Court defined testimonial statements as factual statements that are either explicitly accusatory or important in making the case against the defendant. However, applying this abstract standard to the nuanced and varying situations of everyday life is easier said than done.
When it comes to lab reports in drug cases, you might think that this type of evidence is clearly testimonial, as it is often central to the prosecutor’s case against a defendant. However, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in its rulings on lab reports. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, which was decided in 2009, the Court held that a police lab report used to prove an element of the crime (in this case, that the substance involved was cocaine) contains testimonial statements.
However, just three years later in 2012, the Supreme Court decided in a case called Williams v. Illinois, that a lab report regarding DNA evidence in the case was not testimonial. While this case did not overrule Melendez-Diaz, it certainly called into question when lab reports will be considered testimonial and when they will not be.
Additionally, in 2012, Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg were still on the Supreme Court. They have since been replaced with Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. It is unclear how these new justices will interpret cases involving the Confrontation Clause, and the law may continue to remain in flux.
The Importance of the Confrontation Clause in Arizona
If you’ve been charged with a drug crime in Arizona, you should consult a seasoned criminal defense attorney who is well-versed in the Confrontation Clause. It’s essential that lawyers who defend people accused of drug offenses know how to use the constitutional protections provided by this clause to enforce their clients rights and keep hearsay lab reports from being admitted into evidence.
