Confrontation Clause Reshaped: Crawford v. Washington (CRS Report for Congress)
| Release Date |
July 19, 2004 |
| Report Number |
RS21888 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Estela I. Velez Pollack, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
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
Court's ruling.
