Forty-Seven Key Supreme Court Cases Impacting Evidence Issues

List includes constitutional, statutory, and Federal Rules of Evidence - based evidence-related cases

The Federal Evidence Review has compiled a list of forty key evidence key evidence cases decided by the Supreme Court, which is listed below.

The Supreme Court often sets the direction in which evidence law develops. Some Supreme Court cases clarify the application of constitutional provisions. For example, the landmark Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) five years ago marked a significant new application of the Confrontation Clause. This Term, another key Supreme Court Confrontation Clause case is anticipated in the case of Luis E. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (No. 07–591). The issue under review is: “Whether a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is ‘testimonial’ evidence subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).” The FederalEvidence.com site maintains a Resource Page that monitors developments in this case and will continue to assess the application of the outcome in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.

Other Supreme Court cases explain or illuminate the scope and application of the rules of evidence. The Daubert and Kumho Tire cases announced new standards to admit expert evidence. Other cases address the scope of privileges. For example, in , 491 U.S. 554 (1989), the Supreme Court discussed the showing necessary to invoke in camera review of the crime-fraud exception under the attorney-client privilege.

For more information on the summary of the holdings for these cases, visit the Key Evidence Cases Page. Of course, any effort to develop a list is an ongoing one and may inadvertently omit some cases. If you have any other cases to suggest for this growing list, send it in a comment to this post below.

The Federal Evidence Review's
Key Supreme Court Evidence Cases

Evidence Case	Citation	Evidence Issue(s)
Anderson v. United States	417 U.S. 211 (1974)	(FRE 801(d)(2)(E))
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey	488 U.S. 153 (1988)	(FRE 803(8), FRE 106, FRE 401)
Bourjaily v. United States	483 U.S. 171 (1987)	(Confrontation Clause, FRE 801(d)(2)(E))
Bruton v. United States	391 U.S. 123 (1968)	(Confrontation Clause)
Chapman v. California	386 U.S. 18 (1967)	(Harmless Error Standard)
Coy v. Iowa	487 U.S. 1012 (1988)	(Confrontation Clause)
Crawford v. Washington	541 U.S. 36 (2004)	(Confrontation Clause)
Cruz v. New York	481 U.S. 186 (1987)	(Confrontation Clause)
Danforth v. Minnesota	552 U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 1029 (2008)	(FRE 403, FRE 401)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.	509 U.S. 579 (1993)	(FRE 702)
Davis v. Washington	547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 (2006)	(Confrontation Clause)
Fisher v. United States	425 U.S. 391 (1976)	(FRE 501 (Attorney-Client Privilege))
General Electric Co. v. Joiner	522 U.S. 136 (1997)	(FRE 702)
Giles v. California	554 U.S. _, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008)	(Confrontation Clause)
Gray v. Maryland	523 U.S. 185 (1998)	(Confrontation Clause)
Hickman v. Taylor	329 U.S. 495 (1947)	(Work Product Doctrine)
Holmes v. South Carolina	547 U.S. 319 (2006)	(Confrontation Clause or Compulsory Process Clause, Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense), FRE 403)
Huddleston v. United States	485 U.S. 681 (1988)	(FRE 404(b), FRE 104(b))
Hunt v. Blackburn	128 U.S. 464 (1888)	(Attorney-Client Privilege)
Jaffee v. Redmond	518 U.S. 1 (1996)	(FRE 501 (Psychotherapist Privilege))
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael	526 U.S. 137 (1999)	(FRE 702)
Luce v. United States	469 U.S. 38 (1984)	(FRE 609)
Maryland v. Craig	497 U.S. 836 (1990)	(Confrontation Clause)
Ohio v. Roberts	448 U.S. 56 (1980)	(Confrontation Clause)
Ohler v. United States	529 U.S. 753 (2000)	(FRE 609)
Old Chief v. United States	519 U.S. 172 (1997)	(FRE 403)
Richardson v. Marsh	481 U.S. 200 (1987)	(Confrontation Clause)
Roberts v. Russell	392 U.S. 293 (1968) (per curiam)	(Confrontation Clause)
Schneble v. Florida	405 U.S. 427 (1972)	(Confrontation Clause)
Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn	552 U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 1140 (2008)	(FRE 401, FRE 403)
Swidler & Berlin v. United States	524 U.S. 399 (1998)	(FRE 501 (Attorney-Client Privilege))
Tennessee v. Street	471 U.S. 409 (1985)	(Confrontation Clause)
Tome v. United States	513 U.S. 150 (1995)	(FRE 801(d)(1)(B))
Trammel v. United States	445 U.S. 40 (1980)	(FRE 501 (Privilege Against Adverse Spousal Testimony))
United States v. Abel	469 U.S. 45 (1984)	(FRE 401, FRE 402, FRE 403, FRE 608(b))
United States v. Felix	503 U.S. 378 (1992)	(FRE 404(b))
United States v. Gillock	445 U.S. 360, 367-68 (1980)	(FRE 501 (No State Legislator Privilege))
United States v. Inadi	475 U.S. 387 (1986)	(Confrontation Clause)
United States v. Mezzanatto	513 U.S. 196 (1995)	(FRE 410)
United States v. Nixon	418 U.S. 683 (1974)	(Executive Privilege)
United States v. Olano	507 U.S. 725 (1993)	(Plain Error Standard)
United States v. Salerno	505 U.S. 317 (1992)	(FRE 804(b)(1))
United States v. Zolin	491 U.S. 554 (1989)	(FRE 104(a), FRE 501 (Attorney-Client Privilege))
University Of Pennsylvania v. EEOC	493 U.S. 182 (1990)	(FRE 501(No Peer Review Privilege))
Upjohn Co. v. United States	449 U.S. 383 (1981)	(FRE 501 (Attorney-Client Privilege))
Whorton v. Bockting	549 U.S. 406, 127 S.Ct. 1173 (2007)	(Confrontation Clause)
Williamson v. United States	512 U.S. 594 (1994)	(FRE 804(b)(3))

Share this post with colleagues on:

Federal Evidence Review

Highlighting Recent Federal Evidence Cases and Developments