Hemphill v. New York

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.

New York Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s murder conviction, and certiorari was sought. As part of New York prosecutors’ case against Petitioner, prosecutors introduced testimonial statements from a third party, made as part of a plea allocution to rebut Petitioner’s defense that the third party was the perpetrator. Because the state introduced the evidence to disprove a theory Petitioner raised, the trial court ruled that Petitioner “opened the door” to allow responsive evidence and therefore forfeited his right to confront the third party. New York appellate courts affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the testimonial statements with the same reasoning. Petitioner argues that the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause “cannot be overcome by state evidentiary principles,” and to allow it to do so would permit “abusive practices” and unreliable prosecutorial testimony. Petitioner further argues that the state appellate courts’ reasoning that “opening the door” can overcome the confrontation clause fails. In support of that assertion, Petitioner notes that the confrontation right can be forfeited only where a defendant causes a witness to become unavailable; that because the Confrontation Clause mandates exclusion and it is not a prophylactic rule; and that comparisons to other evidentiary rules fail based on Petitioner’s primary argument.