Legal Crossroads: The Hearsay Rule Meets the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause in Crawford v. Washington
Loading...
Authors
Furbee, Amber Allred
Issue Date
2005
Volume
38
Issue
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION|In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court overruled precedent in favor of a new interpretation of the Confrontation Clause. The Crawford Court mistakenly abandoned the Roberts test for gauging reliability of out-of-court statements although the test applied to Crawford and produced the same result the majority achieved. The Crawford Court narrowly interpreted Sixth Amendment history to exclude all testimonial hearsay, making confrontation the only method for gauging admissibility, but the majority failed to acknowledge that the law surrounding testimonial statements was unsettled at common law. Indeed, civil-law witness examination dates back to the famous 1603 trial of Sir Walter Raleigh for treason. Raleigh's trial concerned an incriminating out-of-court statement by Raleigh's alleged accomplice, Lord Cobham, given during an examination before the Privy Council. Raleigh disputed Cobham's testimony and urged the court to call Cobham as a witness so he could confront him face to face. The judges refused and sentenced Raleigh to death despite Raleigh's protests that he had been tried "by the Spanish Inquisition." In Crawford v. Washington the Supreme Court cited the Raleigh case as proof that English law developed confrontation rights to limit abuses like those suffered by Raleigh. However, the Crawford concurrence noted introduction of an unsworn examination at Raleigh's trial did not result in categorical differentiation between testimonial and nontestimonial statements...
Description
Citation
38 Creighton L. Rev. 999 (2004-2005)
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law