Smith v. Arizona

by Shannon Dorvall

In this work, there are some cases that never leave you. Whether it is a file sitting on the corner of your desk as a reminder of just in case the law changes and you can help this person, or a client’s family who still sends you a holiday card, our work can both take and replenish parts of your soul. We fight for people when others have given up or written off the case as hopeless. Sometimes the battle is out in the open facing a jury, where we have visions of Atticus Finch dancing through our heads. Too often, it is a battle with sides chosen and arguments made that we are not allowed to see or hear. Those are the most confusing and heartbreaking. As we face grieving family members who search our faces for a glimmer of hope for a loved one lost to the system, we use every tool in our kit. We lay awake at night puzzling over what it all means and if there is anything AT ALL we have not tried. And even when we know we went above and beyond fighting the good fight all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, some cases simply occupy rent in our minds. Ever hopeful that maybe some new law or statute will apply to that client so you can give back the hope long lost behind iron bars. Some days that help arrives too late. In the ones with better outcomes, that client is safely back with their family having moved to put the darkness behind them as best they can.

In 2009, our Firm took on a case of a young man accused of murdering a friend. The case had been open for 2 years and trial was set. The family lost faith in the Public Defender’s Office and hired our Firm to step in at trial. This young man had been denied his right to counsel, despite repeated entreaties to get a lawyer during questioning. He was prevented from going to the hospital for a head injury and concussion

Left to urinate in the corner as the police even refused him use of the bathroom. After spending over 24 straight hours securing a false confession stating impossible facts, the police finally allowed the young man to eat before they placed handcuffs on him and charged him with murder. The court refused to allow Imhoff to step into trial despite no witnesses being subpoenaed because the assigned PD felt she should get to keep the case. So much injustice led to the only real conclusion- a guilty verdict. Imhoff appealed and won a reversal. The state filed certiorari at the state supreme court and after it languished for years with the young man in custody following a grant of certiorari, the court finally overturned the victory returning the young man to his original state as a convicted murderer. Imhoff continued to fight, and SCOTUS took the case into conference and after a closed-door pissing match, refused to take any new cases that session despite the strength of his argument.

What was his argument you ask? Funny enough, the exact same argument SCOTUS used to reach a 9-0 decision in favor of the defendant/petitioner in Smith v. Arizona. The Court held when an expert conveys an absent analyst’s statements in support of the expert’s opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth. Allowing the statements without cross-examination of the underlying statements is a violation of the Confrontation Clause. While celebrating is due for a victory for all criminal defendants, it is hard to ignore that behind-the-scenes pettiness cost our client unnecessary time in custody. Had politics not entered the judicial conference, a decisive 9-0 victory could have released our client years ago and with a clean slate.