Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

2 

SMITH v. ARIZONA 

THOMAS, J., concurring in part 

Clause is implicated by extrajudicial statements only inso-
far as they are contained in formalized testimonial materi-
als, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or con-
fessions.” *    White  v.  Illinois,  502  U. S.  346,  365  (1992) 
(THOMAS,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in  judg-
ment); see also Ohio v. Clark, 576 U. S. 237, 254–255 (2015) 
(THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment); Williams, 567 U. S., 
at 110–111 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); Michigan v. Bryant, 562 
U. S. 344, 379 (2011) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment); 
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U. S. 305, 329 (2009) 
(THOMAS, J., concurring); Giles v. California, 554 U. S. 353, 
377–378 (2008) (THOMAS, J., concurring); Davis v. Washing-
ton, 547 U. S. 813, 837 (2006) (opinion of THOMAS, J.); Lilly 
v. Virginia, 527 U. S. 116, 143 (1999) (THOMAS, J., concur-
ring in part and concurring in judgment).  The Confronta-
tion Clause guarantees a criminal defendant “the right . . . 
to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”  Amdt. 6. 
As I have previously explained, “[w]itnesses . . . are those 
who bear testimony.  And testimony is a solemn declaration
or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or prov-
ing some fact.”  Davis, 547 U. S., at 836 (opinion of THOMAS, 
J.)  (citation,  internal  quotation  marks,  and  alterations 
omitted).  This understanding is grounded in “[t]he history 
surrounding the right to confrontation,” which “was devel-
oped to target particular practices that occurred under the
English  bail  and  committal  statutes  passed  during  the
reign of Queen Mary, namely, the civil-law mode of criminal 
procedure, and particularly its use of ex parte examinations 
as evidence against the accused.”  Id., at 835 (internal quo-
tation  marks  omitted).  Rather  than  attempt  to  divine  a
statement’s “primary purpose,” I would look for whether the 

—————— 

*The Confrontation Clause “also reaches the use of technically infor-
mal  statements  when  used  to  evade  the  formalized  process.”  Davis v. 
Washington, 547 U. S. 813, 838 (2006) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judg-
ment in part and dissenting in part).