The “Confrontation Clause [does not] permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification—made for the purpose of proving a particular fact—through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification. We hold that surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement. The accused’s right is to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

In civil contempt proceedings to enforce child support, “where . . . the custodial parent (entitled to receive the support) is unrepresented by counsel, the State need not provide counsel to the noncustodial parent (required to provide the support),” subject to the “caveat . . . that the State must nonetheless have in place alternative procedures that assure a fundamentally fair determination of the critical incarceration-related question, whether the supporting parent is able to comply with the support order.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

“[T]he age of a child subjected to police questioning is relevant to the custody analysis of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Exigent circumstances exception permitting warrantless search of a home when police reasonably believe criminal evidence is being destroyed within applies even though the police’s lawful knock and announce at the house door is what prompts the inhabitants to destroy the evidence.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Statement of mortally wounded victim to police was not “testimonial” under Crawford Confrontation Clause holding because circumstances indicated “primary purpose” of the police questions eliciting statement was to “meet an ongoing emergency.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion