Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf
Page Number: 25

22 

SMITH v. ARIZONA 

Opinion of the Court 

true can they provide a reason to credit the substitute ex-
pert.  So a defendant has the right to cross-examine the per-
son who made them. 

That  means  Arizona  does  not  escape  the  Confrontation 
Clause just because Rast’s records came in to explain the
basis of Longoni’s opinion.  The Arizona Court of Appeals
thought otherwise, and so we vacate its judgment.  To ad-
dress  the  additional  issue  of  whether  Rast’s  records  were 
testimonial (including whether that issue was forfeited), we
remand  the  case  for  further  proceedings  not  inconsistent
with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.