October Term 2021 · Docket 20-637

Can a defendant forfeit Confrontation Clause rights by opening the door to evidence?

The dispute centers on whether a criminal defendant loses the right to exclude testimonial hearsay when they introduce evidence that contradicts it.

Official caption
Hemphill v. New York
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Jeffrey Fisher argued that a defendant cannot lose Confrontation Clause rights by making a legitimate defense.

    He stated this holds true even if the prosecution's hearsay contradicts that defense.

    Ms. Mignola countered that the side that brought the case seeks a broad and sweeping rule.

    She argued that a defendant can never open the door to evidence barred by the Confrontation Clause.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of the Confrontation Clause. It asks if a defendant can waive this constitutional protection by presenting a defense that conflicts with the prosecution's hearsay evidence.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 5, 2021.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Court to rule that a defendant never forfeits Confrontation Clause rights by opening the door to evidence.

the opposing side wants the Court to allow states to admit hearsay when a defendant's defense contradicts it.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues that a legitimate defense based on admissible evidence cannot strip a defendant of the right to exclude testimonial hearsay.

the opposing side argues that a defendant can open the door to otherwise barred evidence by presenting a contradictory defense.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked why the side that brought the case did not simply argue that the Reid precedent is unconstitutional.

Justice Alito questioned how the prosecution's evidence was admissible under state hearsay law despite the Confrontation Clause issues.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of the Confrontation Clause. It determines whether defendants can strategically waive their right to cross-examine witnesses. The outcome shapes how courts handle contradictory evidence in criminal trials.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON