In the case of Idaho v. Wright, 1989, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a child sexual abuse case where statements made by a minor to a pediatrician were admitted as evidence in court. The defendant was convicted based largely on these statements and appealed, arguing that her Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against her had been violated because she could not cross-examine the child who did not testify at trial. The Supreme Court held that admission of such hearsay testimony does not violate Confrontation Clause rights if it bears adequate "indicia of reliability". This can be established if the statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or has particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. In this case, however, they found no such indicia and thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Idaho v. Wright, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Confrontation Clause and its application to hearsay evidence. He argued that historical context suggests that this clause was intended to prevent testimonial statements from being used against a defendant without cross-examination, not all hearsay evidence as suggested by the majority. Furthermore, he contended that reliability should not be considered when determining whether or not a statement falls under this clause because it is subjective and can lead to arbitrary rulings. Instead, he proposed using more objective criteria such as whether or not there was an opportunity for cross-examination at trial or if other procedural safeguards were in place during questioning.