Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Washington court of appeals and supreme court of

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: and there was no opportunity for cross-examination, it's out period! In Crawford: Shift in Crawford is from the misguided search for trustworthiness into what the Confrontation Clause really is: Scalia says if this is a testimonial statement made against the accused in a criminal case, and the accused did not have a chance to confront the witness, then I don't give a rat's ass about trustworthiness! Trustworthiness is not a sufficient test for a constitutional guarantee! ABSOLUTE BAR regardless of trustworthiness CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON [Supreme Court of the United States 2004 Testimonial Hearsay & Confrontation] Facts/Procedural Posture: Michael Crawford stabbed a man who tried to rape his wife, Sylvia. Issue: At trial, state played for the jury Sylvia's tape-recorded statement to the police describing the stabbing, even though Crawford had no opportunity for cross-examination. o Admitted under FRE 804(b)(3), Statement Against Interest (Hearsay exceptions; Declarant unavailable statements against penal interest...Sylvia admitted she...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online