Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf
Page Number: 45

14 

SMITH v. ARIZONA 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

process” and that she complied with the “policies and prac-
tices” of the lab.  App. to  Pet. for Cert. 40a–42a.  He also 
testified that Rast used certain “scientific method[s]” to an-
alyze the samples, such as performing certain tests or run-
ning  a  “blank.”  Id.,  at  41a–42a,  46a–48a.    By  asserting
these facts as true, Longoni effectively entered inadmissible 
hearsay into the record, thus implicating the Confrontation
Clause.  The  Court  could  have  said  that—and  stopped
there. 

* 

* 

* 
For more than a half-century, the Federal Rules of Evi-
dence and similar state rules have reasonably allowed ex-
perts to disclose the information underlying their opinion. 
Because the Court places this form of testimony in consti-
tutional doubt in many cases, I concur only in the judgment.