Document: 474 U.S. 15 106 S.Ct. 292 88 L.Ed.2d DELAWAREv.William A. FENSTERER. No. 85-214. Nov. 4, 1985. PER CURIAM. 1 In this case, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed respondent William Fensterer's conviction on grounds that admission of opinion testimony prosecution's expert witness, who was unable to recall basis for his opinion, denied Sixth Amendment right confront witnesses against him. 493 A.2d 959 (1985). We conclude misconstrued Confrontation Clause as interpreted by decisions Court. 2 * Respondent convicted murdering fiancee, Stephanie Ann Swift. The State's case based circumstantial evidence, and proceeded theory had strangled Swift with a cat leash. To establish leash murder weapon, State sought prove two hairs found were similar Swift's hair, one those been forcibly removed. these theories, relied Special Agent Allen Robillard Federal Bureau Investigation. 3 At trial, testified He explained that, in there are three methods determining hair has removed: (1) if follicular tag is present (2) root elongated misshaped, or (3) sheath skin surrounds root. However, went say " 'I have reviewed my notes, I no specific knowledge particular way determined removed other than fact removed.' Id., at 963. On cross-examination, again which method he employed determine also what meant "forcibly removed" more could little force entailed 'brushing your hand through head brushing hair.' Pet. Cert. 7. trial court overruled respondent's objection Robillard's precluded adequate cross-examination unless testify theories upon, explaining its view weight evidence rather admissibility. 4 defense offered own analysis, Dr. Peter DeForest, agreed Swift's. Doctor DeForest observed tag. spoken telephone Robillard, advised him conclusion forcible removal presence App. D-2. then challenge premise theory—that indicates removal. According scientific study supported premise, be attached naturally fall out. 5 appeal, authority Clause. Nothing "[t]he primary interest secured cross-examination," A.2d, 963, reasoned "[e]ffective discrediting minimum required commit himself opinion." 964 (footnote omitted). Absent such an acknowledgment believed "defense counsel's nothing exercise futility." Ibid. Since not rule out possibility "completely discredited" committed based, it held "was effectively cross-examine key state witness." Accordingly, without reaching additional claim inadmissible under pertinent Rules Evidence. now reverse Court's holding inability whereby arrived rendered violative rights II 6 This cases into broad categories: involving out-of-court statements restrictions imposed law scope cross-examination. first category reflects longstanding recognition "literal 'confront' witness time . forms core values furthered Clause." California v. Green, 399 149, 157, 90 1930, 1934, 26 489 (1970). Cases Ohio Roberts, 448 56, 100 2531, 65 597 (1980), Dutton Evans, 400 74, 91 210, 27 213 (1970), gave rise issues "because hearsay admitted substantive defendants." Tennessee Street, 471 409, 413, 105 2078, 2081, 85 425 Cf. Bruton United States, 391 123, 1620, 20 476 (1968). 7 second exemplified Davis Alaska, 415 308, 318, 94 1105, 1111, 39 347 (1974), which, although some prosecution allowed, did permit counsel "expose jury facts from jurors, sole triers credibility, appropriately draw inferences relating reliability As stated Davis, supra, 315, S.Ct., 1110, "[c]onfrontation means being allowed physically." Consequently, recognized questions will arise because may "effectively emasculate itself." Smith Illinois, 390 129, 131, 748, 750, 19 956 8 falls neither category. It outside category, made attempt introduce statement any purpose, let alone hearsay. Therefore, places "the range admissible hearsay," 65, 2538, called play. 9 inapplicable here, limit nature way. cross-examiner only permitted delve witness' story test perceptions memory, but [also] impeach, i.e., discredit, U.S., 316, 1110. But does follow whenever lapse memory impedes Quite obviously, cannot invites find unreliable memory. That might prefer embrace theory, prepared refute special vigor, irrelevant. 'The main essential purpose confrontation secure opponent opportunity cross-examination.' 315-316, 1109-10 (quoting J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1395, p. 123 (3d ed. 1940) (emphasis original)). Generally speaking, guarantees effective whatever way, extent, wish. See 73, n. 12, 2543, 12 (even where declarant preliminary hearing, except "extraordinary cases" provided ineffective representation earlier proceeding, "no inquiry 'effectiveness' required"). confirmed assurances our fully satisfied one, notwithstanding opinion: factfinder can observe demeanor testifying oath accused. id., 63, 6, 2537-38, 6. 10 need decide whether circumstances so frustrate direct violates demonstrated even based. Moreover, able suggest considered baseless. certainly requires this. 11 Although involved professed stand, lends support respondent. part, Green minor named Porter informed police officer transaction claimed supplied drugs. how obtained introduced Porter's prior inconsistent evidence. 152, 1932. require excluding concedes making statements, asked defend otherwise explain inconsistency between version events question, thus opening full both stories." 164, 1938. concluded posture would premature reach question "[w]hether apparent affected Green's make critical difference application ." 168, 1940. connection, noted argue "prior should evidence" believe apply disclaims all ultimate event," "in opportunities testing significantly diminished." 169, 18, 1940-41, 18 (citations today raised resolved Green. framing indicates, issue arises statement," itself subjected safeguards adequacy later cross-examine, substitute declaration made, here. 13 Under cases, then, stand presents none perils protects defendants criminal proceedings. includes guarantee every refrain giving marred forgetfulness, confusion, evasion. contrary, generally when given fair probe expose infirmities thereby calling attention reasons scant testimony. we hold offend despite opinion. 14 appears breached "serious obligation obstruct defendant's testimony," seemingly knew advance trial. While agree voir dire examination must taken alerted see Brief Opposition A-1, do think obliged somehow refresh recollection. Whether not, law, Constitution forbids reached case: expert's States Bastanipour, 697 F.2d 170, 176-177 (CA7 1982), cert. denied, 460 1091, 103 1790, 76 358 (1983). so, foreknowledge give precise impose it, matter due process, introducing definitely ascertained. introduction ever lacking reliability, prejudicial, deny defendant suggesting actual vigorously disputing validity, utterly dispels case. petition certiorari granted, judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings 16 ordered. 17 Justice MARSHALL dissents summary disposition, ordered affording parties notice file briefs merits. Maggio Fulford, 462 111, 120-121, 2261, 2265-66, 794 (1983) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Wyrick Fields, 459 42, 51-52, 394, 397-98, 74 214 (1982) dissenting). BLACKMUN grant plenary consideration. STEVENS, concurring judgment. Summary reversal supreme court's federal constitutional strictures prosecutors novel kind tends stultify orderly development law. Because allow courts latitude administration their law,1 voted certiorari. Carney, 386, 395, 2066, 2071, 406 (1985) (STEVENS, 21 merits, much closer reserved 168-170, concerned admissibility disclaimed recollection trial.2 decided concerns conclusion. carefully reserving persuade me argument. Nevertheless, granted act summarily, am persuaded violated, remains free reinstate interpretation reluctantly concur 171, 1941-1942, THE CHIEF JUSTICE wrote separately "to emphasize importance allowing experiment innovate, especially area justice." correctly "neither originally drafted, nor amendment, indeed need, dictates absolute uniformity States." 171-172, 1941-42. "Whether ripe decision juncture" 168-169, 1940-41. 18.

Category: 0