Confrontation Clause

Question 1

Sixth Amendment

Answer 1

• In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury
• And to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Question 2

Bruton v. United States

Answer 2

• Rule: If a non-testifying defendant has made an admission implicating co-defendants, that statement can only be used against defendant who said it; it can’t be used against co-defendants.
• Note, however, that a Bruton problem disappears if statement qualifies as co-conspirator hearsay.
• Sometimes Bruton problem can be avoided by redacting all references to co-defendants, by trying co-defendants separately, or by compelling declarant to testify with immunity.

Question 3

Crawford v. Washington

Answer 3

• Rule: A party may not admit testimonial statements that are hearsay unless there is an opportunity for cross-examination.
• Four types of settings where statements are always testimonial:
  1. Prior trial
  2. Prior hearing
  3. Prior grand jury
  4. Talking to a known police officer
• Two factors to consider when determining if something is testimonial:
  1. The formality of the situation
  2. Talking to a known government audience

Question 4

Davis v. Washington

Answer 4

• Rule: If the primary purpose of a statement made to law enforcement personnel is to resolve an ongoing emergency, that statement is nontestimonial and not subject to the Confrontation Clause.
• e.g., if you’re on a 911 call to try to resolve an ongoing emergency, the statements made are not subject to Confrontation Clause issues.

Question 5

Hammon v. Indiana

Answer 5

• Rule: Statements made to police during an investigation of a crime (and that are not made to resolve an ongoing emergency) are testimonial and therefore subject to the Confrontation Clause.
• Statements made to resolve an ongoing emergency are not testimonial and statements made outside of that window are testimonial.

Question 6

Giles v. California

Answer 6

• Rule: A wrongful act of a defendant only creates a forfeiture of his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness against him when the act was designed to prevent the witness from testifying.
• This means the act must have been specifically intended to prevent the witness from testifying and not just an act that resulted in the witness being unable to testify.