Early reports of Confrontation Clause SCOTUS oral argument suggest a likely defendant win (and perhaps a big ruling)

I have not followed too closely the SCOTUS briefing in Smith v. Arizona, a case which concerns application of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment when prosecutors seek to present at trial a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst than the one able to testify.  But a quick review of some of the press reports of today’s oral argument suggest that the drug defendant seems likely to prevail in this case and that maybe a jurisprudentially significant ruling might be afoot.  Here are links and openning from the coverage:

From Law.com, “Justices Seem Skeptical of ‘Substitute Expert’ Used in Arizona Criminal Trial“

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Wednesday to Arizona criminal defendant Jason Smith who claimed the state’s use of a “substitute expert” violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.  The justices spent nearly two hours hearing Smith v. Arizona, which centers on the controversial practice of prosecutors calling substitute experts to testify about an earlier experts’ forensic analysis in a criminal case. 

From Law360, “Justices Toy With New Testimony Rule In Ariz. Expert Dispute“

The U.S. Supreme Court seemed to agree Wednesday that Arizona prosecutors violated a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses testifying against him by presenting a substitute expert witness at trial, and instead centered most of its questions on whether the court should revise its rule for identifying testimonial statements.

From SCOTUSblog, “Court appears to favor Arizona man’s confrontation clause claim“

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared sympathetic to an Arizona man who contends that his constitutional rights were violated when an expert witness testified for the prosecution about drug analysis performed by another forensic scientist’s. Jason Smith alleges that the expert’s testimony contravened the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause, which gives defendants in criminal cases the right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him,” and a majority of the justices seemed inclined to agree with him.

The full oral argument transcript can be accessed here.