Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36

Supreme Court of the United States

2004

Chapter

7

Title

Hearsay and Constitutional Issues

Page

304

Topic

Hearsay Statements By Non-Testifying Declarants

Quick Notes

Facts

o         Crawford [Sylvias husband] stabbed a man [named Kenneth] he claimed tried to rape his wife. During Crawford's trial, prosecutors played for the jury his wife's [Sylvia] tape-recorded statement to the police describing the stabbing.

o         The tape-recorded statement contradicted Crawford's argument [whether Kenneth had draw a weapon before the petitioner assaulted him] that he stabbed the man in defense of his wife.

o         Because it was pre-recorded, Crawford could not cross-examine the statement.

o         The jury convicted Crawford for assault.

No Chance to cross-examine

o         Crawford claimed the playing of his wife's statement, with no chance for cross-examination, violated the Sixth Amendment guarantee that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

o         The state supreme court upheld the conviction, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ohio v. Roberts (1980).

o         That decision allowed the admission of out-of-court testimony against a defendant if that testimony was reliable

Supreme Court Holding

o         In this case, the State admitted Sylvia's testimonial statement against petitioner, despite the fact that he had no opportunity to cross-examine her.

o         That alone is sufficient to make out a violation of the Sixth Amendment.

o         Where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.

Book Name

Evidence: A Contemporary Approach.  Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves.  ISBN:  978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o         Whether the States use of Syvias statements violated the Confrontation Clause?  Yes.

Procedure

Trial

o         The trial court admitted her statement.  Defendant was convicted in state court of assault

Appellant

o         The Appellate Court overturned on the grounds that Mrs. Crawford's statement had been improperly admitted

Wash.

o         The Washington Supreme Court reinstated the conviction.  The Washington Supreme Court felt that the statement was reliable.  The Court noted that the Crawfords' statements interlocked.

Supreme

o         Reversed.

o         In this case, the State admitted Sylvia's testimonial statement against petitioner, despite the fact that he had no opportunity to cross-examine her.

o         That alone is sufficient to make out a violation of the Sixth Amendment.

o         Where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl Crawford

Df Washington

Description

o         Kenneth Lee was stabbed in his apartments.

o         Police arrest Kenneth and read both he and his wife their Miranda rights.

o         Detectives interrogated Kenneth and his wife twice.

o         Petitioner and his wife said he went after Kenneth, because Kenneth tried to raped her.

The Stabbing (Petitioners Story)

o         Petitioner thought he saw something in Lees hands, but was not positive.

The Stabbing (Wifes Story)

o         Corroborated events leading up.

o         Arguably different-particularly with respect to whether Kenneth had draw a weapon before the petitioner assaulted him.

Petitioner (Claim Self Defense)

o         Claimed self defense at trial.

o         Wife did not testify, because of state marital privilege.

o         Marital privilege bars a spouse from testifying WITHOUT other spouses consent.

Washington Spousal Exception

o         Does not extend to a spouses out of court statements.

o         Admissible under the hearsay exception.

State (Sought to admit tapes)

o         Sought to introduce Sylvias tape-recorded statement to the policy as evidence that the stabbing was not in self-defense.

State (Penal Interest Exception)

o         Against penal interests.

o         Sylvia admitted leading her husband to the Kenneths apartment.  FRE 807.

o          

Petitioner (Violated 6th Amendment right to confrontation)

o         The evidence would violated is const. right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

Courts Response

o         Ohio v. Roberts it does not bar admission of an unavailable witness's statement against a criminal defendant if the statement bears "adequate 'indicia of reliability.

o         To meet that test, evidence must either fall within a

o    "firmly rooted hearsay exception" OR

o    bear "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."

Trial court (particularized guarantees of trustworthiness)

o         Admitted the statement on the [particularized guarantees of trustworthiness],

o         Sylvia was not shifting blame but rather corroborating her husband's story that he acted in self-defense or "justified reprisal";

o         She had direct knowledge as an eyewitness;

o         She was describing recent events; and

o         She was being questioned by a "neutral" law enforcement officer.

o         The prosecution played the tape for the jury and relied on it in closing, arguing that it was "damning evidence" that "completely refutes [petitioner's] claim of self-defense."

o         The jury convicted petitioner of assault.

The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause

o         Provides that, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

o         We have held that this bedrock procedural guarantee applies to both federal and state prosecutions.

Unavailable witness's out-of-court statement may be admitted

o         So long as [the out-of-court statement] has adequate indicia of reliability

1.     Falls within a "firmly rooted hearsay exception" or

2.     Bears "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."

Petitioner argues

o         That this test strays from the original meaning of the Confrontation Clause and urges us to reconsider it.

Court witnesses against

1.     One could plausibly read "witnesses against" a defendant to mean those who actually testify at trial.

2.     Those whose statements are offered at trial

3.     Something in-between

Court History (Civil, Common-law)

o         The common-law tradition is one of live testimony in court subject to adversarial testing.

o         The civil law condones examination in private by judicial officers.

Court   Rejects

o         Reject that Confrontation Clause Only applies to in court statement

o         Rejects that Out-of Court introduced depends on the law of evidence for the time being.

Overheard Remarks

o         Does not implicate the 6th Amendment.

o         Might be unreliable evidence and a good candidate for exclusion.

Ex parte Examinations

o         Might be admissible under modern hearsay rules.

Confrontation Clause Application

o         It applies to witnesses against the accursed-in other words, those who bear testimony.

Testimony

o  Testimony is "[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact."

Bears Testimony Example

  An accuser who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony.

Does Not Bear Testimony

   A person who makes a casual remove to an acquaintance does not bear testimony

Testimonial Statements (ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent)

1.     material such as affidavits,

2.     custodial examinations,

3.     prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or

4.     similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially,"

5.      "extrajudicial statements . . .  contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions,"

o         These formulations all share a common nucleus and then define the Clause's coverage at various levels of abstraction around it.

o         Regardless of the precise articulation, some statements qualify under any definition--for example, ex parte testimony at a preliminary hearing.

Statements Taken By Police Officers

o         Statements taken by police officers in the course of interrogations are also testimonial under even a narrow standard.

o         Police interrogations bear a striking resemblance to examinations by justices of the peace in England.

o         The statements are not sworn testimony, but the absence of oath was not dispositive.

Court Sylvias (wife) recorded statement, knowingly given in response to structured police questioning, qualifies under any conceivable definition.

Discussion Right of Confrontation

o         The text of the Sixth Amendment does not suggest any open-ended exceptions from the confrontation requirement to be developed by the courts.

Admits Hearsay Exceptions

o         Rather, the "right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him," is most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding.

Dying Declaration (Must be accepted, sui generis [of its own kind])

The existence of that exception as a general rule of criminal hearsay law cannot be disputed.

o         The exception must be accepted on historical grounds.

Mattox deceased witnesss prior testimony

o         At first trial, the Df had an adequate opportunity to confront the witness.

Other Cases

o         At prior trial or preliminary hearing testimony is admissible ONLY IF the Df had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine.

o         However, testimony would be EXCLUDED if UNAVAILABILITY was not ESTABLISHED.

Accomplice Confession (Excluded If)

o         Accomplice confessions were the Df - had not opportunity to cross-examine.

Making unwittingly [unaware] statement to the FBI Admissible

Unavailable witness Admissible, If unavailable at trial AND prior opportunity to cross.

When a Declarant appears for cross-examination

o         The Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the USE of his prior testimonial statements

o         The Clause does NOT bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.

o         The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.

Discussion V - Roberts Conditions

1.     Firmly root hearsay exceptions.

2.     Bears particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

Discussion C Roberts Failing on Full Display

o         Sylvia Crawford made her statement while in police custody,

o         Her release "depend[ed] on how the investigation continues."

o         Her answers to leading questions from police detectives implicated her husband in Lee's stabbing and undermined his self-defense claim.

Trial Court Allowed testimony because

o         Sylvia had direct knowledge and was an eye witness.

Supreme Court Framers would have been astounded

o         Only cross-examination could reveal her perception of her situation.

o         Washington State Supreme Court Gave dispositive weight to ambiguous statements.

Supreme Court Reversed Decision to uphold the Sixth Amendment

o         Otherwise do a re-analysis would perpetuate what the Sixth Amendment condemns.

o         It is difficult to imagine Roberts providing any meaningful protection.

Supreme Court (non-testimonial && testimonial)

Non-testimonial hearsay is at issue

o         Where non-testimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers' design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law--as does Roberts, and as would an approach that exempted such statements from Confrontation Clause scrutiny altogether.

Testimonial evidence is at issue

o         Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.

Supreme Court Holding

o         In this case, the State admitted Sylvia's testimonial statement against petitioner, despite the fact that he had no opportunity to cross-examine her.

o         That alone is sufficient to make out a violation of the Sixth Amendment.

o         Roberts notwithstanding, we decline to mine the record in search of indicia of reliability.

o         Where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.

The judgment of the Washington Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Rules

Supplement

http://www.invispress.com/law/evidence/crawford.html

o    Crawford and his wife confronted Lee, claiming that Lee had assaulted the wife.

o    A scuffle ensued, and Lee got stabbed.

o    Mr. Crawford claimed he had acted in self-defense when he believed Lee had picked up a weapon. Lee denied doing anything that might make Mr. Crawford believe he was trying to attack him.

o    After the attack, Mr. and Mrs. Crawford were both given Miranda warnings and interviewed by the police.

o    Mr. Crawford said to the police that he was not sure if Mr. Lee had a weapon, but that Crawford believed at the time that Lee did.

o    Mrs. Crawford said separately that she had seen the attack and that Lee was not holding a weapon.

o    Thereby damaging Mr. Crawford's self-defense claim.

o    Mr. Crawford was arrested and charged with assault.

o    At trial, Mrs. Crawford could not be compelled to testify against her husband because of spousal privilege.

o    The prosecution attempted to introduce a tape recording of Mrs. Crawford's statement into evidence.

o    Mr. Crawford objected on the grounds that the out-of-court statement was hearsay.

o    The prosecution argued that the statement met the requirement of the residual exception to hearsay under FRE 807.

o    They further suggested that Mrs. Crawford could waive spousal privilege and testify if she really wanted to.

o    The Crawfords argued that being forced to waive spousal privilege would be a violation of the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment.

o    The Trial Judge allowed the statement to be admitted.

o    The Trial Court found Crawford guilty of assault.  He appealed.

o    The Appellate Court overturned on the grounds that Mrs. Crawford's statement had been improperly admitted.  The prosecution appealed.

o    The Appellate Court applied a 9 factor test to determine if the statement was reliable, and decided that it was not.

o    See Ohio v. Roberts (448 U.S. 56 (1980)), which says that if a witness is unavailable, that witnesses' testimony can be admitted through a third person if it bears "adequate indicia of reliability" falling within a "firmly rooted hearsay exception" or has "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."

o    The Washington Supreme Court reinstated the conviction.  Crawford appealed.

o    The Washington Supreme Court felt that the statement was reliable.

o    The Court noted that the Crawfords' statements interlocked.

o    The US Supreme Court overturned and threw out the conviction.

o    The US Supreme Court found that the use of a spouse's recorded statement made during police interrogation violated the defendant's 6th Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against the defendant where the spouse, because of the state law spousal privilege, did not testify at the trial.

o    The Court explicitly stated that any out-of-court statement that is "testimonial" in nature is not admissible, unless the declarant is unavailable to testify in court, and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him or her.

o    However, the opinion does not define "testimonial," which has allowed courts across the country to determine that issue for themselves.

o    This case completely overturned Ohio v. Roberts.

o    "Where non-testimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers' design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law - as does Ohio v. Roberts and as would an approach that exempted such statements from Confrontation Clause scrutiny altogether.  Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the 6th Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.  We leave for another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of "testimonial."

o    The Court found that the Confrontation Clause, "applies to 'witnesses' against the accused, in other words, those who bear testimony.' 'Testimony,' in turn, is typically 'a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.'"

Class Notes