Total Credits: 1.0 including 1.0 Ethics CLE, 1.0 CLE
Upending what long has been the practice across the country, in Smith v. Arizona the United States Supreme Court held that a substitute forensic scientist may not testify about an absent analyst’s report or notes when rendering their own independent opinion in a case without violating the Confrontation Clause. Led by Assistant Arizona Attorney General Celeste Kinney, one of the primary appellate prosecutors on the case, this webinar will begin by analyzing the case and its holding, and will then turn to practical applications for Arizona prosecutors.
| Smith v AZ - Analysis of Case & Holding (864.2 KB) | 58 Pages | Available after Purchase |
Celeste Kinney has worked in the Criminal Appeals Section at the Attorney General's Office for a little over two years. Before that, she handled direct appeals and post-conviction appeals in Chicago at the Cook County State's Attorney's Office prior to moving back to Arizona.
Agencies
Services