Crawford v. Washington
(full
text)
U.S. Supreme Court
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S.
36 (2004)
Date: 03/08/04
Case No: 02-9410
Issue: Confrontation Clause,
testimonial hearsay
Holding: This case overturns Ohio v.
Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597
(1980). The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment's
Confrontation Clause prohibited the admission at trial of a tape
recorded statement made to police by an eye-witness to a stabbing,
when the witness did not testify in court, even though the
statement held sufficient indicia of reliability.
Summary:
D stabbed a man who allegedly tried to rape D's wife.
Police tape-recorded D's wife's account of the stabbing, which
conflicted with D's claim of self-defense. The trial court allowed
the statement to be played at trial. Under Roberts,
certain hearsay statements were allowed when they were deemed
reliable, but here the Court drew a distinction between testimonial
and nontestimonial hearsay, rather than following the
Roberts test of reliability. Under the new rule,
testimonial hearsay violates the Confrontation Clause, regardless
of reliability or categorization as a hearsay exception, unless the
witness is genuinely not available to testify, and there has been
prior opportunity for cross-examination. The Confrontation Clause
is not implicated when statements are nontestimonial. The Court did
not provide a comprehensive definition of "testimonial," but it did
state that the new rule applies at a minimum to prior testimony at
a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial,
and to police interrogations. To avoid Confrontation Clause
violations when it is known in advance that a witness may be
unavailable at trial, prosecutors have preserved the witness's
testimony by ensuring the defendant has the opportunity for cross
examination at a pretrial proceeding. This method may satisfy the
demands of Crawford when the witness is genuinely
unavailable to testify at trial.