Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

4 

HEMPHILL v. NEW YORK 

ALITO, J., concurring 

he commits himself to the trier of fact’s examination of what 
the declarant has to say on that subject.  The remainder of 
the  declarant’s  statement  or  statements—and  any  other 
statements by the same declarant on the same subject—are 
fair game.  The defendant cannot reasonably claim other-
wise, given his tactical choice to put the declarant’s state-
ments on the relevant subject in contention despite his un-
availability  for  cross-examination.  And  that  is  true 
regardless  of  whether  the  defendant  attempts  to  “invoke”
his right to confront an unavailable declarant after intro-
ducing his out-of-court statements.  Having made the choice
to introduce the statements of an unavailable declarant, a 
defendant  cannot  be  heard  to  complain  that  he  cannot 
cross-examine that declarant with respect to the remainder 
of that statement or the declarant’s related statements on 
the same subject. 

* 

* 
The Court emphasizes that its decision does not call into
question  the  rule  of  completeness  or  other  principles  that
may support implied waiver of the confrontation right.  On 
this understanding, I join the opinion of the Court in full. 

*