In Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. --- (2022), the Court considered whether a trial court can admit unconfronted statements if it concludes that the defendant "opened the door" to the evidence as part of his or her defense.
The answer: No. "Hemphill did not forfeit his confrontation right merely by making the plea allocution arguably relevant to his theory of defense." The Confrontation Clause is not subject to an opening-the-door exception.
At the outset, the Supreme Court affirmed the very helpful appellate rule that “[o]nce a federal claim is properly presented, [on appeal] a party can make any argument in support of that claim.”
Then, on the merits, the Court explained:
"If Crawford stands for anything, it is that the history, text, and purpose of the Confrontation Clause bar judges from substituting their own determinations of reliability for the method the Constitution guarantees. The Clause 'commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination.' . . . . The upshot is that the role of the trial judge is not, for Confrontation Clause purposes, to weigh the reliability or credibility of testimonial hearsay evidence; it is to ensure that the Constitution’s procedures for testing the reliability of that evidence are followed."
"The trial court here violated this principle by admitting unconfronted, testimonial hearsay against Hemphill simply because the judge deemed his presentation to have created a misleading impression that the testimonial hearsay was reasonably necessary to correct. For Confrontation Clause purposes, it was not for the judge to determine whether Hemphill’s theory that Morris was the shooter was unreliable, incredible, or otherwise misleading in light of the State’s proffered, unconfronted plea evidence. Nor, under the Clause, was it the judge’s role to decide that this evidence was reasonably necessary to correct that misleading impression. Such inquiries are antithetical to the Confrontation Clause."
The Supreme Court thus concluded: "The Confrontation Clause requires that the reliability and veracity of the evidence against a criminal defendant be tested by cross-examination, not determined by a trial court. The trial court’s admission of unconfronted testimonial hearsay over Hemphill’s objection, on the view that it was reasonably necessary to correct Hemphill’s misleading argument, violated that fundamental guarantee."
