The Confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution gives criminal defendants the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”. The interpretation of this right at the U.S. Supreme Court has changed significantly over the past 20 years beginning with Crawford v. Washington. This term, the Supreme Court once again addressed this issue in a case coming from our very own Arizona courts.

This episode reviews several of the cases that brought us to Smith v. Arizona, what the decision means for current criminal practitioners, and tries to predict where we go from here. Conversations like this one are necessary as we decide what the fallout from this decision will be in ongoing cases.

Oral Argument from the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Arizona.

The case deals with the ability of the government to call an expert who relies on another experts findings to testify at trial. Typically this has come up in the field of scientific testing such as drug, DNA, and blood testing. The court had considered several cases previously on whether this practice violates the confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The case was argued on January 10, 2024.

Arizona was recently the flashpoint for one of the most intensely debated issues in US politics today: abortion. After a ruling from the Arizona Supreme Court, people from across the country voiced their opinions on whether abortion in Arizona should be more freely accessible or more restricted. What was almost totally ignored, however, were the two laws that the Supreme Court was considering and what they were actually deciding.

In this episode, we briefly review the history of abortion in Arizona, and we take a deeper look at the argument at the Supreme Court, what was the question that they were asked to consider, what their ruling said, and then a look forward to see where abortion laws are going in our state.

Understanding this issue might not change our minds about abortion, but it can help us understand more about criminal law in Arizona and statutory construction which is key to truly understanding criminal law and policy here in State 48.

The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled in a case that has gained significant attention across the country. While the subject of the laws - abortion - may be captivating to most people, the idea of interpreting two laws passed decades apart is one of judicial construction that courts are tasked with every day across the state.

Since both of these laws include criminal elements, it is a great opportunity to see how the law works and issues that arise in criminal law in more depth. It also is a clear example of how criminal laws affect everyone and are a reflection of societal priorities.

An analysis episode related to the argument and the ruling will be released shortly.

Organized retail theft has been in the news across the country with high profile reporting like shoplifting related crimes have never seen. On this episode we talk to Doug Mangum, a prosecutor focusing on ORT crimes, and Mike Powell, an organized retail crime manager dealing with this problem from the private sector across the southwest. They share some of the legal and practical ways Arizona government and businesses are dealing with this growing area of concern.

DUI case law is one of the most well developed areas of law in Arizona, but there continues to be statutory changes and cases affecting the way we handle DUIs across the state. One of the more substantive cases of the last few years was Valenzuela dealing with ADOT's Admin Per Se form. Here Adam Susser and Jake discuss what led up to the decision and some of the results we have seen so far.