Number: RS21888
Title: Confrontation Clause Reshaped: Crawford v. Washington
Authors: Estela I. Velez Pollack, American Law Division 
Abstract: In Crawford v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004), the United States Supreme Court held that to admit hearsay testimonial evidence in criminal prosecutions the Sixth Amendment, the Confrontation Clause, requires that (1) the witness be unavailable and (2) the accused had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. This decision overruled Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), where the Supreme Court had advanced a test requiring only that the statement from unavailable witnesses fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or bore particularized guarantees of trustworthiness in order to be admissible. In Crawford, the Court conducted an historical analysis of the Confrontation Clause concluding that a prior opportunity to cross-examine was a necessary condition for testimonial statements to be admitted against an accused. The Court held that admitting statements on a judicial finding of reliability was contrary to constitutional requirements. The Court declined to provide a comprehensive definition of testimonial, but provided some examples, such as testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial, or statements made during police interrogations. This report provides a summary of the Courts ruling.
Pages: 6
Date: July 19, 2004