Delaware v. Fensterer Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A prosecution expert could not recall the basis for his opinion. The Supreme Court held this did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, as the defense still had the opportunity to cross-examine the expert and expose his memory lapse to the jury.
Legal Significance: The Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way the defense wishes. A witness’s memory lapse about the basis of their testimony goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility under the Constitution.
Delaware v. Fensterer Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
During William Fensterer’s murder trial, the prosecution presented an FBI expert, Agent Robillard, to testify that a hair found on the alleged murder weapon had been forcibly removed. Robillard stated his opinion was based on one of three possible scientific methods but testified that he could not recall which specific method he had used to reach his conclusion. On cross-examination, he again could not remember the basis for his opinion. The trial court overruled the defense’s objection, stating the issue went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The defense then called its own expert, who suggested a likely basis for Robillard’s conclusion and proceeded to challenge the scientific validity of that method. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that Robillard’s inability to recall the basis of his opinion denied Fensterer his Sixth Amendment right to effectively cross-examine a key witness. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment bar the admission of an expert witness’s opinion when the expert cannot recall the specific basis or methodology used to form that opinion?
No. The admission of the expert’s opinion did not violate the Confrontation Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment bar the admission of an expert witness’s opinion when the expert cannot recall the specific basis or methodology used to form that opinion?
Conclusion
This case establishes that a witness's memory failure, even a significant one Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labori
Legal Rule
The Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupida
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, distinguished this case from Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Confrontation Clause is not violated by admitting expert testimony from