US Supreme Court Update: Hemphill v. New York

In April 2006, two men got into a fight with several other people in the Bronx. Shortly thereafter, someone opened fire with a 9 millimeter handgun and a child in a passing car was killed. Nicholas Morris was identified by witnesses as the shooter and pursuant to a warrant, officers found a 9 millimeter cartridge and ammunition for a .357 revolver in his home. They did not find the weapon. Morris’ trial ended in a mistrial and rather than re-try him, Morris pled to possessing a firearm at the scene of the shooting. Because the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to prove possession of a firearm at the scene, Morris testified during the plea that he possessed a .357 revolver at the scene.

In 2013, Darrell Hemphill was charged with the murder. At trial, Hemphill presented evidence that a 9 millimeter cartridge was located at Morris’ home shortly after the shooting. In response, the State presented the testimony of Morris at his plea that he had possessed a .357 revolver at the scene.

Hemphill appealed and the question presented to the United States Supreme Court was:

When, if ever, does a criminal defendant who “opens the door” to evidence that would otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence also forfeit his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause?

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held:

The Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses against them, and the Court has recognized no open-ended exceptions to this requirement—only those exceptions established at the time of the founding. In People v. Reid, New York’s highest court held that a criminal defendant “opens the door” to evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause if the evidence was “reasonably necessary” to correct a misleading impression made by the defense’s argument. Contrary to the State’s contention, the Reid rule is not merely procedural, but a substantive principle of evidence that dictates what material is relevant and admissible. Such an exception is antithetical to the Confrontation Clause.

Source: Oyez.com.