Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

2 

HEMPHILL v. NEW YORK 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Hemphill argues in this Court that the Reid rule violates 
the  Sixth  Amendment.    That  claim  is  not  properly  before 
us.  Under 28 U. S. C. §1257, “we will not consider a peti-
tioner’s federal claim unless it was either addressed by or
properly presented to the state court that rendered the de-
cision we have been asked to review.”  Adams v. Robertson, 
520 U. S. 83, 86 (1997) (per curiam).  When the state court 
does  not  “expressly  address  the  question  on  which  we 
granted  certiorari,”  but  is  instead  “silent  on  [the]  federal
question  before  us,  we  assume  that  the  issue  was  not 
properly presented.”  Ibid.  The petitioner then “bears the
burden of . . . demonstrating that the state court had a fair
opportunity to address the federal question that is sought 
to be presented.”  Id., at 87 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).

The  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  did  not  address—“ex-
pressly” or otherwise, id., at 86—Hemphill’s Sixth Amend-
ment claim.  It affirmed the trial court’s application of Reid 
in a single sentence: “[T]he trial court did not abuse its dis-
cretion  by  admitting  evidence  that  the  allegedly  culpable 
third  party  pleaded  guilty  to  possessing  a  firearm  other
than  the  murder  weapon.”  35  N. Y. 3d  1035,  1036,  150 
N. E. 3d 356, 358 (2020).  This lone sentence does not evince 
any  awareness  of,  let  alone  respond  to,  a  Confrontation 
Clause claim.  Because the Court of Appeals was “silent on
[the] federal question before us,” Hemphill must prove that 
he afforded the state court a “fair opportunity” to address 
his current Sixth Amendment claim.  Adams, 520 U. S., at 
86–87 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Hemphill  does  not  meet  that  burden.  To  provide  the
Court of Appeals with a “fair opportunity” to evaluate his
Sixth  Amendment  claim,  Hemphill  was  required  to  raise 
that claim “with fair precision,” New York ex rel. Bryant v. 
Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63, 67 (1928), and in an “unmistak-
able  manner,”  Dewey  v.  Des  Moines,  173  U. S.  193,  198 
(1899), such that “the mind of the state court was directed