Anthony M. Clark v. United States

At Petitioner’s trial, the United States admitted drug lab results through a surrogate expert who testified to their accuracy and veracity, despite that he neither observed nor took any part in the testing or the production of the documents. During Petitioner’s appeal, this Court issued its decision in Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779, 792-93, 800-01 (2024), in which it held the prosecution violates the Confrontation Clause when it calls a surrogate expert witness to convey the statements of an absent lab analyst if: (1) the absent analyst’s statements are introduced for their truth; and (2) the statements conveyed are testimonial. Petitioner challenged this evidence on appeal based on Smith, but the lower court affirmed, finding no Confrontation Clause violation because “[a]fter independently reviewing each exhibit generally and the computer-generated data specifically, [the surrogate expert] concluded that [Petitioner]’s urine tested positive for [controlled substances].” App. 15. Military courts have now joined a split among the circuits and state courts of last resort regarding the proper application of Smith’s second prong. This Court has yet to resolve this issue of what statements are “testimonial” under its varying, primary-purpose test. The question presented is: Did the surrogate expert’s testimony about the accuracy and veracity of the lab results used to convict Petitioner violate the Confrontation Clause?