Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

2 

SMITH v. ARIZONA 

GORSUCH, J., concurring in part 

that is correct. 

Just consider a few other possibilities.  In protecting the
right  to  confront  “witnesses,”  perhaps  the  Sixth  Amend-
ment reaches any “person who gives or furnishes evidence.” 
United  States  v.  Hubbell,  530  U. S.  27,  49–50  (2000)
(THOMAS, J., concurring) (discussing founding-era meaning
of the word “witness” in the Fifth Amendment); see also id., 
at 50, n. 1.  Or perhaps the Amendment reaches all “those
who ‘bear testimony.’ ”  Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 
36, 51 (2004) (quoting 2 N. Webster, An American Diction-
ary of the English Language (1828)).  Perhaps, too, a state-
ment “bears testimony” so long as it “explicitly or implicitly 
. . . relate[s] a factual assertion or disclose[s] information.” 
Doe v. United States, 487 U. S. 201, 210 (1988) (discussing
what makes a statement “testimonial” for purposes of the 
Fifth Amendment); see also 2 Webster, An American Dic-
tionary (observing near the founding that “testimony” could 
mean “evidence” and “proof of some fact” as well as a “sol-
emn  declaration  or  affirmation”  made  to  “establis[h]  or 
prov[e] some fact”).  To my mind, all these questions (and
maybe others too) warrant careful exploration in a case that 
presents them and, without more assurance, I worry that
the Court’s proposed “primary purpose” test may be a limi-
tation of our own creation on the confrontation right.

I am concerned, as well, about the confusion a “primary 
purpose” test may engender.  Does it focus, for example, on
the purposes an objective observer would assign to a chal-
lenged statement, see ante, at 3 (referencing the “ ‘objective
witness’ ”), the declarant’s purposes in making it, see ante, 
at 21 (asking “why Rast created the report or notes”), the
government’s purposes in “ ‘procur[ing]’ ” it, see ante, at 3, 
or maybe still some other point of reference?  Even after we 
figure out a statement’s purposes, how do we pick the pri-
mary one out of the several a statement might serve?  Or 
determine in exactly what way that purpose must “relat[e]
to a future criminal proceeding”?  Ante, at 19.  And if we fail