The Confrontation Clause: Where things stand after Arizona v. Smith

The Confrontation Clause: Where things stand after Arizona v. Smith

The Confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution gives criminal defendants the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”. The interpretation of this right at the U.S. Supreme Court has changed significantly over the past 20 years beginning with Crawford v. Washington. This term, the Supreme Court once again addressed this issue in a case coming from our very own Arizona courts. This episode reviews several of the cases that brought us to Smith v. Arizona, what the decision means for current criminal practitioners, and tries to predict where we go from here. Conversations like this one are necessary as we decide what the fallout from this decision will be in ongoing cases.

Smith v. Arizona - US Supreme Court Oral Argument

Oral Argument from the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Arizona. The case deals with the ability of the government to call an expert who relies on another experts findings to testify at trial. Typically this has come up in the field of scientific testing such as drug, DNA, and blood testing. The court had considered several cases previously on whether this practice violates the confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution. The case was argued on January 10, 2024.

Statutory Construction: Abortion as a case study

Arizona was recently the flashpoint for one of the most intensely debated issues in US politics today: abortion. After a ruling from the Arizona Supreme Court, people from across the country voiced their opinions on whether abortion in Arizona should be more freely accessible or more restricted. What was almost totally ignored, however, were the two laws that the Supreme Court was considering and what they were actually deciding. In this episode, we briefly review the history of abortion in Arizona, and we take a deeper look at the argument at the Supreme Court, what was the question that they were asked to consider, what their ruling said, and then a look forward to see where abortion laws are going in our state. Understanding this issue might not change our minds about abortion, but it can help us understand more about criminal law in Arizona and statutory construction which is key to truly understanding criminal law and policy here in State 48.

ASC Oral Argument: Planned Parenthood v. Mayes

The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled in a case that has gained significant attention across the country. While the subject of the laws - abortion - may be captivating to most people, the idea of interpreting two laws passed decades apart is one of judicial construction that courts are tasked with every day across the state. Since both of these laws include criminal elements, it is a great opportunity to see how the law works and issues that arise in criminal law in more depth. It also is a clear example of how criminal laws affect everyone and are a reflection of societal priorities. An analysis episode related to the argument and the ruling will be released shortly.

Sentencing: Law and policies that affect practice

Zach Murphy breaks down sentencing in Arizona. While it is something that criminal attorneys deal with every day, it can be daunting to the lay person and public policy professionals alike. There are a number of factors – both legal and practical – that must be understood to truly understand what is happening in a criminal case.This episode goes over plea negotiation and the laws that drive it from a high level view.