Document Type


Publication Date



This article comprises a four-part debate between Paul Rothstein, Professor of Law at Georgetown Law Center, and Ronald J. Coleman, who works in the litigation practice group at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, on Williams v. Illinois, a Supreme Court case that involves the Confrontation Clause, which entitles a criminal defendant to confront an accusing witness in court. The issue at hand is whether said clause is infringed when a report not introduced into evidence at trial is used by an expert to testify about the results of testing that has been conducted by a non-testifying third party.

The debate includes the following parts:

  • Part 1: Ronald J. Coleman:Dexter’s Dilemma: Rule 703 Does Not Violate the Confrontation Clause
  • Part 2: Paul Rothstein: Surrogate Witnesses Just Won’t Cut It: A Response to Ronald Coleman
  • Part 3: Ronald J. Coleman: More on Williams v. Illinois: A Response to Paul Rothstein
  • Part 4: Paul Rothstein: Williams v. Illinois: Responses to Coleman’s Arguments

Publication Citation

Ronald J. Coleman & Paul Rothstein, Williams v. Illinois and the Confrontation Clause, (Dec. 6, 2011),