## Facts

- Andrew Goldstein, diagnosed with schizophrenia and with an extensive psychiatric history, pushed Kendra Webdale, a stranger, into the path of an oncoming New York City subway train, killing her.
- Goldstein was charged with second-degree murder and asserted an insanity defense.
- At the second trial (after the first ended in a hung jury), both sides presented forensic psychiatrists whose opinions relied on personal examinations and clinical records.
- The prosecution’s expert also relied on interviews with third parties who knew or observed Goldstein; those interviewees did not testify at trial.
- Over objection, the trial court permitted the prosecution expert to recount the substance of third-party interview statements to the jury as part of the basis for her opinion, including assertions bearing on Goldstein’s mental state and motives.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, as interpreted by *Crawford v. Washington*, is violated when a prosecution expert conveys to the jury testimonial statements from non-testifying third parties who were not subject to cross-examination.
2. Whether New York’s expert “basis” rule permits the jury to hear the substance of otherwise inadmissible third-party statements when offered to explain the expert’s opinion rather than for their truth.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and vacated the conviction, ordering a new trial.
- The court held that the defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated because the prosecution expert recounted third-party statements from declarants unavailable for cross-examination.
- The third-party statements were treated as testimonial because they were obtained for a prosecution-oriented forensic assessment and were presented to help establish contested facts about the defendant’s mental condition and culpability.
- The error was not harmless given the central role of the expert testimony in rebutting the insanity defense.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements offered against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.
- An expert may rely on hearsay in forming an opinion, but the prosecution may not use expert testimony as a conduit to place testimonial hearsay before the jury.
- Labeling testimonial statements as “basis” evidence does not avoid constitutional confrontation requirements when the substance of the statements is communicated to the jury in support of guilt or a key disputed element.

## Conclusion

The conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered because the prosecution’s psychiatric expert relayed testimonial third-party interview statements to the jury, and the defendant had no opportunity to confront and cross-examine those declarants, violating the Sixth Amendment.


People v. Goldstein, 6 N.Y.3d 119 (N.Y. 2005)