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.