It looks like this decision was written by the conservative good guys.
I’m not sure what they were thinking. I’ve always thought that in a case like this the jury should hear the evidence and then be warned by the judge that it is hearsay.
But I can understand the decision, I guess. A LEO presented the hearsay evidence, and it could be a dangerous precedent if they are allowed to do that.
Yup. Written by Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas and Alito, and joined in part by Souter and Ginsburg. Dissent by Breyer, Kennedy and Stevens.
I’m not sure what they were thinking.
Basically, they are saying that the defendant's constitutional right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him" means what it says.