This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Wright (D) was accused of sexually molesting two girls. The younger girl was interviewed by a physician. She made certain statements during this interview that incriminated D. D was charged with molestation of the two children. At trial, the younger girl did not testify, but the court admitted her prior statements. D objected to this admission for hearsay and Confrontation Clause reasons. The court's justification for using the statements was Idaho's residual hearsay rule, which permitted the introduction of hearsay evidence that has substantial indicia of reliability. The court found, based on other evidence heard at trial, that the statements were reliable. D was convicted. The state supreme court reversed, holding that the Confrontation Clause was violated. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.