Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

Court continued, “the Framers would not have allowed ad-
mission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not 
appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the
defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examina-
tion.”  Id.,  at  53–54.4   Because  “[t]he  text  of  the  Sixth 
Amendment  does  not  suggest  any  open-ended  exceptions 
from the confrontation requirement to be developed by the
courts,” the requirement was “most naturally read” to ad-
mit  “only  those  exceptions  established  at  the  time  of  the
founding.”  Id., at 54; see also Giles v. California, 554 U. S. 
353, 377 (2008) (“declin[ing] to approve an exception to the
Confrontation Clause unheard of at the time of the found-
ing or for 200 years thereafter”). 

B 

The State accepts all of the foregoing principles.  It does 
not  dispute  that  Morris’  plea  allocution  was  testimonial, 
meaning  that  it  implicated  Hemphill’s  rights  under  the
Confrontation  Clause.  Nor  does  the  State  argue  that  the 
“opening the door” rule announced in People v. Reid and ap-
plied  in  Hemphill’s  case  was  an  exception  to  the  right  to
confrontation at common law. 

The State’s primary contention is that the Reid rule “is 
not an exception to the Confrontation Clause at all.”  Brief 
for Respondent 36.  Instead, the State attempts to charac-
terize the Reid rule as a mere “procedural rule” that “treats 
the misleading door-opening actions of counsel as the equiv-
alent  of  failing  to  object  to  the  confrontation  violation.” 
Brief for Respondent 31.  So construed, the argument goes, 

—————— 

4 The Crawford Court defined “testimony” as a “solemn declaration or 
affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” 
541 U. S., at 51 (internal quotation marks omitted).  “[A]t a minimum,” 
the  Court  explained,  this  includes  “prior  testimony  at  a  preliminary 
hearing,  before  a  grand  jury,  or  at  a  former  trial;  and  . . .  police
interrogations.”  Id., at 68.  Subsequent decisions have expounded on this 
definition.  See, e.g., Ohio v. Clark, 576 U. S. 237, 244–245 (2015).