Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–637 
_________________ 

DARRELL HEMPHILL, PETITIONER v. NEW YORK 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 
OF NEW YORK 

[January 20, 2022]

 JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. 
This Court may review “[f]inal judgments or decrees ren-
dered by the highest court of a State” only where, as rele-
vant here, a federal right “is specially set up or claimed” in 
the  state  court.  28  U. S. C.  §1257(a).    Because  Darrell 
Hemphill did not raise his Sixth Amendment claim in the
New York Court of Appeals, we lack jurisdiction to review 
that court’s decision.  I respectfully dissent. 

I 
Under New York case law, a trial court may generally ad-
mit otherwise inadmissible evidence if a party has “opened
the  door”  to  its  introduction  at  trial.    People  v.  Massie,  2 
N. Y. 3d 179, 180, 809 N. E. 2d 1102 (2004) (internal quota-
tion marks omitted).  A party “opens the door” when he pre-
sents “evidence or argument” that is “incomplete and mis-
leading,”  and  responsive  evidence  is  necessary  to  “correct
the  misleading  impression.”    Id.,  at  184,  809  N. E. 2d,  at 
1105.  In People v. Reid, 19 N. Y. 3d 382, 388, 971 N. E. 2d 
353, 357 (2012), the New York Court of Appeals held that
this  door-opening  doctrine  permits  a  trial  court  to  admit
testimonial hearsay otherwise barred by the Sixth Amend-
ment’s Confrontation Clause.  In this case, invoking Reid, 
the trial court permitted the prosecution to introduce Nich-
olas Morris’ plea allocution to rebut Hemphill’s defense that
Morris possessed the murder weapon.  See ante, at 3–5.