Xavier Brown v. Mississippi

The Confrontation Clause protects a defendant’s right of cross-examination by limiting the prosecution’s ability to introduce statements made by people not in the courtroom. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). At Petitioner Xavier Brown’s capital trial, the State called three witnesses who relayed testimonial statements concerning forensics from absent, unidentified witnesses whom Brown never had the opportunity to confront. Since Crawford, which was handed down while Brown’s case was still on direct appeal, this Court has clarified Crawford’s premise and applied it to forensic scientific testimony. See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009); Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011); Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024). Brown was never afforded the benefit of Crawford or its application in Melendez-Diaz, Bullcoming, and Smith, even though state law permitted him to seek post-conviction relief pursuant to those intervening decisions. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the Mississippi Supreme Court’s application of the Confrontation Clause concerning how forensic scientific testimony must be treated contravenes this Court’s precedent and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

2. Whether the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision to avoid reaching the merits of the confrontation issue conflicts with Cruz v. Arizona, 598 U.S. 17 (2023) and disregards the supremacy of federal law by denying Brown the benefit of this Court’s application of Crawford to forensic scientific testimony?