Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

truth of [the private lab analyst’s] statements.”  Id., at 106, 
n. 1, 108 (concurring in judgment).  A dissent for another 
four Justices agreed: “[T]he utility of the [private analyst’s] 
statement that Lambatos repeated logically depended on its
truth.”  Id.,  at  132  (opinion  of  KAGAN, J.).  And  the  State 
could  not  avoid  that  conclusion  by  “rely[ing]  on  [Lamba-
tos’s] status as an expert.”  Id., at 126.  Those shared views 
might have made for a happy majority, except that a differ-
ent Confrontation Clause issue intruded.  JUSTICE THOMAS 
thought that the private lab report was not testimonial be-
cause it lacked sufficient formality, so affirmed the Illinois
Supreme Court on that alternative ground.  The bottom line 
was that Williams lost, even though five Members of this
Court rejected the state court’s “not for the truth” reason-
ing.1 

Our opinions in Williams “have sown confusion in courts 
across the country” about the Confrontation Clause’s appli-
cation to expert opinion testimony.  Stuart v. Alabama, 586 
U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting from denial 
of certiorari) (slip op., at 2).  Some courts have applied the 
Williams  plurality’s  “not  for  the  truth”  reasoning  to  basis 
testimony, while others have adopted the opposed five-Jus-
tice view.2  This case emerged out of that muddle. 
—————— 

1 The  Court  also  failed  to  reach  agreement  on  the  testimonial  issue. 
The four Justices who accepted the state court’s “not for the truth” view 
also concluded that the report was not testimonial.  See Williams, 567 
U. S., at 81–86 (plurality opinion).  But they did so for reasons different 
from JUSTICE THOMAS’s. Compare ibid. with id., at 110–117 (opinion con-
curring in judgment).  The result was that no single rationale for affir-
mance garnered a majority. 

2 Compare, e.g., State v. Mercier, 2014 ME 28, ¶¶12–14, 87 A. 3d 700, 
704 (accepting the “not for the truth” rationale for admitting an expert’s 
basis testimony); State v. Hutchison, 482 S. W. 3d 893, 914 (Tenn. 2016); 
United States v. Murray, 540 Fed. Appx. 918, 921 (CA11 2013), with Peo-
ple v. Sanchez, 63 Cal. 4th 665, 684, 374 P. 3d 320, 333 (2016) (rejecting
the  “not  for  the  truth”  rationale  for  admitting  an  expert’s  basis  testi-
mony); Martin v. State, 60 A. 3d 1100, 1107 (Del. 2013); Young v. United 
States,  63  A. 3d  1033,  1045  (D. C.  2013);  Leidig  v.  State,  475  Md.  181,