Document Type
Article
Publication Title
New York University Law Review
Publication Date
2020
ISSN
0028-7881
Page Number
136
Keywords
evidentiary problems, forensic reports, confrontation clause
Disciplines
Constitutional Law | Evidence | Law
Abstract
This Essay addresses one of the key evidentiary problems facing courts today: the treatment of forensic reports under the Confrontation Clause. Forensics are a staple of modern criminal trials, yet what restrictions the Confrontation Clause places on forensic reports is entirely unclear. The Supreme Court’s latest decision on the issue, Williams v. Illinois, sowed widespread confusion among lower courts and commentators, and during the 2018 Term, Justices Gorsuch and Kagan dissented to the denial of certiorari in Stuart v. Alabama, a case that would have revisited (and hopefully clarified) Williams.
Our Essay dispels the confusion in Williams v. Illinois. We argue that Williams involved three difficult and intertwined evidentiary questions: i) when experts may use inadmissible evidence as the basis of their opinions under Rule 703; ii) whether Rule 703 itself is consistent with the Confrontation Clause; and iii) whether reports that arise out of rigorous scientific processes implicate the Confrontation Clause at all. Along the way, we show that the answers to these questions help predict the future of the Confrontation Clause and offer a potential tool for improving forensic science.
Recommended Citation
Edward K. Cheng and Cara C. Mannion,
Unraveling Williams v. Illinois, 95 New York University Law Review. 136
(2020)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/1160