Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

16 

SMITH v. ARIZONA 

Opinion of the Court 

Q From your review of the lab notes in this case, can 
you tell me what scientific method was used to analyze 
Item 26? 
A Yes. 
Q And what was used? 
A The microscopic examination and the chemical color 
test. . . . 
Q That was done in this case? 
A Yes, it was. 
Q  Was  there  a  blank  done  to  prevent  contamination,
make sure everything was clean? 
A According to the notes, yes. 
.
Q  In  reviewing  what  was  done,  your  knowledge  and 
training as a forensic scientist, your knowledge and ex-
perience  with  DPS’s  policies,  practices,  procedures, 
your knowledge of chemistry, the lab notes, the intake
records,  the  chemicals  used,  the  tests  done,  can  you 
form an independent opinion on the identity of Item 26? 
A Yes. 
Q What is that opinion?
A That is a usable quantity of marijuana. 

 . 

 .

 .

 .

Id., at 39a–42a, 46a.  And then the prosecutor went on to 
Items 20A, 20B, and 28, asking similar questions, receiving
similar answers based on Rast’s records, and finally elicit-
ing  similar  “independent  opinions”—which  were  no  more 
than what Rast herself had concluded.  See supra, at 8–9. 
“Yes,”  Longoni  confirmed,  just  as  Item  26  was  a  “usable 
quantity  of  marijuana,”  Items  20A  and  20B  were  “usable 
quantit[ies] of methamphetamine” and Item 28 was a “usa-
ble quantity of cannabis.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 46a, 47a, 
49a. 

Rast’s  statements  thus  came  in  for  their  truth,  and  no 
less because they were admitted to show the basis of Lon-
goni’s expert opinions.  All those opinions were predicated