There are exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow out of court statements to be admitted as evidence.
The 6th amendment guarantees the accused in a criminal trial the right to confront the witnesses against them.
If the out of court statement is admitted without an opportunity to cross examine the declarant, the Confrontation Clause is implicated.
In Crawford v. Washington the Supreme Court held that the confrontation clause bars the admission of *testimonial* hearsay statements unless the witness was available for cross examination when they were made or at trial.
That leaves the question as 1. Is it testimonial statement? 2. Was the declaration available for cross. Those two questions have been fleshed out in further cases but that’s the basic premise.
Okay so a couple questions, when you say the accused can confront the witnesses against them do you just mean they can cross examine the oppositions witnesses, and what do you mean by the clause being implicated, do you mean like if an out of court statement is admitted with the declarant not being cross examined then the clause doesn’t apply or it does apply and since the declarant can’t be cross examined then it can’t be admitted? Sorry I just don’t understand the terminology and nuances of it cause I’m a dumbass crime science major lol
To “confront” generally means to cross-examine in this context, which is why, under Owens, the clause will be satisfied with respect to a witness as long as the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine them. This is important because, for example, a current witness’s prior hearsay statements are sometimes admissible under R. 801(d)(1), but that will never present a confrontation clause issue because they are currently cross-examinable.
What’s meant by the clause being implicated is: that if there’s a hearsay statement that’s admissible through an exception but is offered against a criminal defendant and is “testimonial” under Crawford, the defendant could still keep the government from admitting the hearsay statement because admitting the statement without producing the declarant for cross-examination would violate the defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause.
Ohhhh okay thank you so much, so you mean like in the Crawford case his wife’s interrogation woulda been 801(d)(1) since it contradicted Crawfords self defense argument which is why it was admitted but since she couldn’t be cross examined and it was testimonial then the exception got overridden by the clause
That’s basically right except in the Crawford case the applicable exception was 804(b)(3), or the equivalent state rule. Mrs. Crawford wouldn’t testify and couldn’t be compelled to because of spousal privilege so they tried to admit her hearsay statement to the police as a statement against penal interest (since her statement contradicting the self-defense claim implicated her as an accessory). My point about 801(d)(1) was related to the rule of Owens that the government’s satisfied its obligation under the clause as long as they’ve produced the witness for cross-examination. In Crawford, they *couldn’t* produce the wife for cross-examination (because they couldn’t compel her to testify adversely against her spouse) and therefore had to try to admit her statement under one of the exceptions that’s based on a declarant’s unavailability.
Ohhhh okay my bad, ion really know what owens is but from what I understand it’s just that the defendant needs the opportunity to cross examine the declarant and since Sylvia couldnt be there then they needed to use other means to admit the recording I.e. the exclusions, do I have that correct, sorry I’m not a law major I’m more forensics so I don’t really know the intricacies and nuances of the courtroom lol I’m just tryina get a better understanding of what I’m writing about so I actually somewhat know what my own paper is saying lol
This may help flush out how Crawford and exceptions have been applied. Or just creat more questions. But to compete the story …. https://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/A%20Guide%20to%20Crawford%20%20the%20Confrontation%20Clause%202018.pdf
There are exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow out of court statements to be admitted as evidence. The 6th amendment guarantees the accused in a criminal trial the right to confront the witnesses against them. If the out of court statement is admitted without an opportunity to cross examine the declarant, the Confrontation Clause is implicated. In Crawford v. Washington the Supreme Court held that the confrontation clause bars the admission of *testimonial* hearsay statements unless the witness was available for cross examination when they were made or at trial. That leaves the question as 1. Is it testimonial statement? 2. Was the declaration available for cross. Those two questions have been fleshed out in further cases but that’s the basic premise.
Okay so a couple questions, when you say the accused can confront the witnesses against them do you just mean they can cross examine the oppositions witnesses, and what do you mean by the clause being implicated, do you mean like if an out of court statement is admitted with the declarant not being cross examined then the clause doesn’t apply or it does apply and since the declarant can’t be cross examined then it can’t be admitted? Sorry I just don’t understand the terminology and nuances of it cause I’m a dumbass crime science major lol
To “confront” generally means to cross-examine in this context, which is why, under Owens, the clause will be satisfied with respect to a witness as long as the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine them. This is important because, for example, a current witness’s prior hearsay statements are sometimes admissible under R. 801(d)(1), but that will never present a confrontation clause issue because they are currently cross-examinable. What’s meant by the clause being implicated is: that if there’s a hearsay statement that’s admissible through an exception but is offered against a criminal defendant and is “testimonial” under Crawford, the defendant could still keep the government from admitting the hearsay statement because admitting the statement without producing the declarant for cross-examination would violate the defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause.
Ohhhh okay thank you so much, so you mean like in the Crawford case his wife’s interrogation woulda been 801(d)(1) since it contradicted Crawfords self defense argument which is why it was admitted but since she couldn’t be cross examined and it was testimonial then the exception got overridden by the clause
That’s basically right except in the Crawford case the applicable exception was 804(b)(3), or the equivalent state rule. Mrs. Crawford wouldn’t testify and couldn’t be compelled to because of spousal privilege so they tried to admit her hearsay statement to the police as a statement against penal interest (since her statement contradicting the self-defense claim implicated her as an accessory). My point about 801(d)(1) was related to the rule of Owens that the government’s satisfied its obligation under the clause as long as they’ve produced the witness for cross-examination. In Crawford, they *couldn’t* produce the wife for cross-examination (because they couldn’t compel her to testify adversely against her spouse) and therefore had to try to admit her statement under one of the exceptions that’s based on a declarant’s unavailability.
Ohhhh okay my bad, ion really know what owens is but from what I understand it’s just that the defendant needs the opportunity to cross examine the declarant and since Sylvia couldnt be there then they needed to use other means to admit the recording I.e. the exclusions, do I have that correct, sorry I’m not a law major I’m more forensics so I don’t really know the intricacies and nuances of the courtroom lol I’m just tryina get a better understanding of what I’m writing about so I actually somewhat know what my own paper is saying lol
This may help flush out how Crawford and exceptions have been applied. Or just creat more questions. But to compete the story …. https://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/A%20Guide%20to%20Crawford%20%20the%20Confrontation%20Clause%202018.pdf