The U.S. Supreme Court case Michigan v. Richard Perry Bryant in 2010 revolved around the admissibility of a dying declaration as evidence and its potential violation of the Confrontation Clause under the Sixth Amendment, which gives defendants the right to confront their accusers. The defendant, Richard Perry Bryant, was convicted for shooting Anthony Covington based on Covington's statements to police before his death identifying Bryant as his attacker. The Michigan Supreme Court overturned this conviction arguing that admitting these statements violated Bryant's rights under the Confrontation Clause since he could not cross-examine Covington due to his death prior to trial. However, upon appeal by Michigan state prosecutors, the U.S Supreme Court reversed this decision with a 6-2 vote stating that such declarations are allowed if they meet an ongoing emergency exception where information is obtained from victims by law enforcement officers responding to an ongoing situation rather than being testimonial in nature.

In the dissenting opinion for Michigan v. Bryant, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision distorted existing precedent on what constitutes a testimonial statement under Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Washington, thereby undermining the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment which guarantees defendants' right to confront their accusers in court. He contended that Covington’s statements were made with an understanding they would be used prosecutorially and thus should have been deemed testimonial regardless of his medical condition or primary purpose of police questioning at that time. Scalia criticized the majority's "purpose-based" approach as vague and subjective, arguing it could lead to arbitrary results depending on how courts interpret different situations.