Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

of words or phrases is essential’ ” for satisfying the presen-
tation requirement, so long as the claim is “ ‘brought to the 
attention of the state court with fair precision and in due
time.’ ”  Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 584 (1969) (quot-
ing New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63, 67 
(1928)).

Hemphill has satisfied this requirement.  At every level 
of his proceedings in state court, Hemphill argued that the 
admission  of  Morris’  plea  allocution  violated  his  Sixth 
Amendment  right  to  confrontation  as  interpreted  by  this 
Court in Crawford.  Before the trial court, Hemphill timely 
objected that admission of the plea allocution would be “a 
Crawford violation.”  App. 160.  Before the Appellate Divi-
sion, he argued that the trial court “denied Mr. Hemphill
his 6th Amendment right to confront the witnesses against
him.”  Supp. App. to Brief in Opposition SA108.  And before 
the Court of Appeals, he contended that “[t]he Appellate Di-
vision’s analysis,” which had affirmed the trial court’s ad-
mission of the plea allocution, “is absurd in the context of
the Confrontation Clause, the purpose of which is to afford 
the accused the right to meaningfully test the prosecution’s 
proof.”  App.  388.  “Once  a  federal  claim  is  properly  pre-
sented, a party can make any argument in support of that
claim.”  Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 534 (1992).  The 
Court  may  therefore  consider  any  argument  Hemphill 
raises in support of his claim that he did not “forfei[t] his 
right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confron-
tation  Clause”  by  “open[ing]  the  door  to  responsive  evi-
dence.”  Pet. for Cert. i.2 

—————— 

2 According to the dissent, Hemphill did not present his constitutional
claim below because he “challenged only the misapplication of state law” 
(i.e., the opening-the-door rule enunciated in People v. Reid, 19 N. Y. 3d 
382, 971 N. E. 2d 353 (2012)) without developing his constitutional ob-
jection.  Post,  at  4  (opinion  of  THOMAS,  J.).  Not  so.  Hemphill  argued 
before the Court of Appeals that the Appellate Division’s interpretation 
of  Reid  in  his  case  “equates  presenting  a  valid,  evidence-based  third