Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Hemphill v. New York

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Hemphill v. New York
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: October 5, 2021
Decided: January 20, 2022
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
8-1
Majority
Sonia Sotomayor • Chief Justice John Roberts • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas

Hemphill v. New York is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 5, 2021, during the court's October 2021-2022 term.

In an 8-1 opinion, the court reversed the New York Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the state trial court violated Hemphill's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him by accepting a written transcript of a former defendant's plea hearing into evidence without making that defendant available at Hemphill's trial for cross-examination.[1] Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on jurisdictional grounds. Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Darrell Hemphill was tried in a New York state court for second-degree murder in the shooting death of a child. At trial, Hemphill’s attorney introduced evidence of a different shooter. The trial court ruled that this defense opened the door to the prosecution presenting rebuttal evidence, which included testimony given at prior legal proceedings that would typically be barred by the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. Hemphill was convicted. After exhausting his appeals in the New York state courts, he appealed on constitutional grounds to the U.S. Supreme Court.[2] Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned a criminal defendant's constitutional right to be confronted by the witnesses against him.
  • The question presented: "Whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant who opens the door to responsive evidence also forfeits his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause."[3]
  • The outcome: The court reversed the New York Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. It found that the state trial court violated Hemphill's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him by accepting a written transcript of a former defendant's plea hearing into evidence without making that defendant available at Hemphill's trial for cross-examination.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the New York Court of Appeals. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • January 20, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the New York Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings.
    • October 5, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument. The case was originally scheduled for arguments on October 12, 2021.
    • April 19, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • November 6, 2020: Darrell Hemphill appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • June 25, 2020: The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department's ruling upholding defendant Darrell Hemphill's conviction.

    Background

    The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to be confronted by witnesses against them. This is known as the Confrontation Clause. In practice, this clause requires that criminal prosecutors offer their evidence at trial through witnesses who are subject to cross-examination by the defense. Testimonial evidence given in previous legal proceedings is typically prohibited in a defendant's trial unless the witness who gave that evidence testifies at the trial. By various actions, a defendant can waive their constitutional right to be confronted by witnesses against them, and the question in this case revolves around whether the defense team's actions at trial waived that right.[2]

    Defendant Darrell Hemphill was tried for second-degree murder in a New York state court in the 2006 shooting death of a child. At the trial, Hemphill's attorney introduced evidence that implicated a different person as the shooter. The trial court judge ruled that in doing so, the defense opened the door to the prosecution presenting rebuttal evidence, known as responsive evidence, including statements of previous grand jury testimony that would typically be barred by the Confrontation Clause. Hemphill was convicted of the crime.[2]

    Hemphill appealed his conviction to the New York state appellate courts on a number of grounds. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, holding that a rational jury could find as they did even with evidence of third-party guilt, and, further, that the trial court has wide discretion to make evidentiary rulings during the trial. Hemphill then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on constitutional grounds.[4]

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:[3]

    Question presented:
    “ Whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant who opens the door to responsive evidence also forfeits his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause.[5] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In an 8-1 opinion, the court reversed the New York Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the state trial court violated Hemphill's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him by accepting a written transcript of a former defendant's plea hearing into evidence without making that defendant available at Hemphill's trial for cross-examination.[1] Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “

    In 2006, a stray 9-millimeter bullet killed a 2-year-old child in the Bronx. The State charged Nicholas Morris with the murder, but after trial commenced, it offered him a plea deal for a lesser charge. The State specifically required Morris to admit to a new charge of possession of a .357-magnum revolver, not the 9-millimeter handgun originally charged in the indictment and used in the killing.

    Years later, the State prosecuted petitioner Darrell Hemphill for the same murder. At his trial, Hemphill blamed Morris, and he elicited undisputed testimony from a prosecution witness that police had recovered 9-millimeter ammunition from Morris’ nightstand. Morris was outside the United States and not available to testify. The trial court allowed the State to introduce parts of the transcript of Morris’ plea allocution as evidence to rebut Hemphill’s theory that Morris committed the murder. The court reasoned that Hemphill’s arguments and evidence had "open[ed] the door” to the introduction of these testimonial out-of-court statements, not subjected to cross-examination, because they were "'reasonably necessary'" to "'correct'" the "'misleading impression'" Hemphill had created. People v. Reid, 19 N. Y. 3d 382, 388, 971 N. E. 2d 353, 357(2012).

    The question is whether the admission of the plea allocution under New York’s rule in People v. Reid violated Hemphill’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. The Court holds that it did. Hemphill did not forfeit his confrontation right merely by making the plea allocution arguably relevant to his theory of defense.
    ...
    The Confrontation Clause requires that the reliability and veracity of the evidence against a criminal defendant be tested by cross-examination, not determined by a trial court. The trial court’s admission of unconfronted testimonial hearsay over Hemphill’s objection, on the view that it was reasonably necessary to correct Hemphill’s misleading argument, violated that fundamental guarantee. The judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[1]

    “

    I agree with the Court’s conclusion that—assuming Morris’s statement was testimonial—its admission violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. I write separately to address the conditions under which a defendant can be deemed to have validly waived the right to confront adverse witnesses.
    ...
    Our precedents establish that a defendant can impliedly waive the Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses through conduct.* The cause of implied waiver can be a “failure to object to the offending evidence” in accordance with the procedural standards fixed by state law. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U. S. 305, 314, n. 3 (2009). But implied waiver can also occur when a defendant engages in a course of conduct that is incompatible with a demand to confront adverse witnesses. In Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337 (1970), for instance, we held that a defendant may relinquish his right to confront adverse witnesses by “conducting himself in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom.” Id., at 343.

    The problem with the New York rule at issue in this case is that its application is predicated on neither conduct evincing intent to relinquish the right of confrontation nor action inconsistent with the assertion of that right. The introduction of evidence that is misleading as to the real facts does not, in itself, indicate a decision regarding whether any given declarant should be subjected to cross-examination. Nor is that kind of maneuver inconsistent with the assertion of the right to confront a declarant whose out-of-court statements could potentially set the record straight. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

    In their dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    This Court may review “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State” only where, as relevant here, a federal right “is specially set up or claimed” in the state court. 28 U. S. C. §1257(a). Because Darrell Hemphill did not raise his Sixth Amendment claim in the New York Court of Appeals, we lack jurisdiction to review that court’s decision. I respectfully dissent. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[9] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[10]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, Hemphill v. New York, decided January 20, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "Hemphill v. New York: Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed April 19, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "No. 20-637: Question Presented," accessed April 19, 2021
    4. ↑ New York Court of Appeals, People v. Hemphill, decided June 25, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed October 5, 2021
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Hemphill v. New York - oral argument transcript," accessed October 5, 2021
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    9. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    10. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Hemphill_v._New_York&oldid=9117261"