Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

defendant through the introduction of his own coerced tes-
timony.  It did so despite the strong and obvious interest in
preventing  perjury  because  the  very  introduction  of  the 
coerced  testimony  would  violate  the  Fifth  Amendment’s 
provision  that  “[n]o  person  . . .  shall  be  compelled  in  any 
criminal case to be a witness against himself.”  In view of 
that guarantee, balancing of interests was “not simply un-
necessary,” but “impermissible.”  Portash, 440 U. S., at 459. 
The  Sixth  Amendment  speaks  with  equal  clarity:  “In  all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . .
to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”  It admits 
no exception for cases in which the trial judge believes un-
confronted testimonial hearsay might be reasonably neces-
sary  to  correct  a  misleading  impression.    Courts  may  not 
overlook its command, no matter how noble the motive.  See 
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U. S. 140, 145 (2006) 
(“It is true enough that the purpose of the rights set forth 
in  [the  Sixth]  Amendment  is  to  ensure  a  fair  trial;  but  it
does not follow that the rights can be disregarded so long as
the trial is, on the whole, fair”). 

D 
The  State  warns  that  a  reversal  will  leave  prosecutors
without recourse to protect against abuses of the confronta-
tion right.  These concerns are overstated.  State and fed-
eral hearsay rules generally preclude all parties from intro-
ducing unreliable, out-of-court statements for the truth of 
the matter asserted.  See, e.g., Fed. Rule Evid. 802.  Even 
for otherwise admissible evidence, “well-established rules,” 
such as Federal Rule of Evidence 403, “permit trial judges
to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by 
certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of 
the  issues,  or  potential  to  mislead  the  jury.”    Holmes  v. 
South Carolina, 547 U. S. 319, 326 (2006).  If a court admits 
evidence  before  its  misleading  or  unfairly  prejudicial  na-
ture becomes apparent, it generally retains the authority to