483:
historical record, Scalia stated, "the
Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Scalia determined that a prior opportunity for cross-examination was mandatory, and dispositive of whether or not testimonial statements of an unavailable witness are admissible. Testimonial statements are formal declarations, i.e., those made to law enforcement or government personnel. "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty."
31:
475:, the standard used by the Washington state courts. He thought the Crawford decisions of the various levels of Washington state courts epitomized this problem. Justice Scalia gave a thorough history of the Confrontation Clause, explaining how the Clause became part of the Constitution using famous English cases, such as that of
357:. 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. Mrs. Crawford, being interrogated separately, at first said that she had not seen the attack, but under further questioning said that she had seen the attack and that Lee was not holding a weapon.
545:, a common practice, which allows the accused to be prosecuted without the participation of their accusers in the criminal court process. Evidence-based prosecution relies heavily on admission of statements under hearsay exceptions to reproduce the evidentiary effect of a victim testifying in court. The
490:
Court determined that where non-testimonial statements are involved, the
Confrontation Clause allows a court to use its discretion to determine the reliability of the statements. "Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability
450:
standard was still controlling law. Crawford and his wife, Sylvia, were questioned separately by police regarding a stabbing incident that had taken place at Lee's home. The statements of the two were generally corroborating, but while
Michael had claimed self-defense, Sylvia implied that Michael was
526:
Legal scholars' main criticism of the decision was the courts' failure to define "testimonial." One of the main areas in which lower courts struggled to resolve this issue was the use of 911 calls during the course of trial where the caller is not available to testify. This was the factual situation
463:
The United States
Supreme Court held that the use of the spouse's recorded statement made during police interrogation violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against the defendant where the spouse, because of the state law marital privilege, did not testify
426:
The
Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment (applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment) provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him." This right has a very specific purpose. The focus of the Clause is
482:
This history, Scalia concluded, clearly shows that the
Confrontation Clause was directed at keeping "ex parte" examinations out of the evidentiary record. Specifically, the Confrontation Clause applies to "witnesses" against the accused, meaning those who "bear testimony." Relying on this and the
384:
The defense counsel objected to the admission of the wife's statement, on the ground that Mr. Crawford would be unable to confront (i.e., cross-examine) Mrs. Crawford on her statement without waiving spousal privilege, and that this would be a violation of the
Confrontation Clause of the Sixth
517:
This decision had an immediate, profound effect upon the ability of prosecutors to prove their cases through the use of evidence that had previously been admissible via various exceptions to the hearsay rule. Justice Scalia's opinion explicitly states that any out-of-court statement that is
377:). The deputy prosecutor, Robert Lund, sought to introduce Mrs. Crawford's statement to the police as evidence that Mr. Crawford had no reasonable belief that he was in danger from Mr. Lee. Generally, out-of-court statements by persons other than the accused are excluded as
442:
if a witness is unavailable, that witness's testimony can be admitted through a third person if it bears "adequate indicia of reliability." This was true if a statement fell within a "firmly rooted hearsay exception" or had "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."
534:
in which the Court laid out a definition of "testimonial." Other cases have dealt with the issue of the previously common practice of admitting certain types of certified documents under the business records or public records exception to the hearsay rule.
167:
Does playing out-of-court testimony to a jury, with no chance for cross-examination, violate a defendant's Sixth
Amendment guarantee that "n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against
2228:
522:
the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him or her. However, the opinion does not define "testimonial," which has allowed courts across the country to determine that issue for themselves.
385:
Amendment. The court allowed the statement to be admitted on the basis that the statement was reliable, as it was partially corroborated by Mr. Crawford's statement to police, amongst other things.
491:
and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. . . . he only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the
Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation."
509:
framework. Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, stated he would not have expanded the right of defendants to exclude out-of-court statements on the basis that they could not confront the witness.
427:
on getting the truth out of a witness, and allowing a trier of fact to determine whether the witness indeed told the truth. Even given these important goals, this right is not absolute.
2223:
1214:
1123:
178:
The use at trial of out-of-court statements made to police by an unavailable witness violated a criminal defendant's Sixth
Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.
404:
reversed that decision. After applying a nine-factor test to determine whether Sylvia's statement was reliable, and therefore admissible under the doctrine of
284:
418:. In particular, the court noted that Michael and Sylvia Crawford's statements interlocked, and therefore concluded that Sylvia's statements were admissible.
817:
142:
82:
549:
Court's decision renders most of these statements inadmissible without the accuser coming to court and testifying against the person he or she is accusing.
479:. He then described the context in which the Constitutional Framers drafted the clause, and displayed how early American courts interpreted the clause.
1107:
894:
327:
280:
2145:
629:
330:. The Court held that prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable may not be admitted without cross-examination.
2243:
2218:
661:
130:
Defendant convicted, Thurston County Superior Court, 11-19-99; reversed, 107 Wn. App. 1025 (2001); reversed, conviction reinstated, 54
2179:
781:"Crawford And Expert Testimony As Hearsay: A Practical Guide To Navigating The Uncertain Currents Of Expert Testimony Under Crawford"
346:
when he believed Lee had picked up a weapon. Lee denied doing anything that might make Crawford believe he was trying to attack him.
885:
2238:
780:
2233:
1986:
1278:
1759:
1190:
1040:
499:
315:
35:
1945:
338:
Michael Crawford and his wife Sylvia Crawford confronted Kenneth Lee over an allegation that Lee had attempted to
1906:
1807:
373:
law states that a spouse cannot testify in court without the accused spouse's consent (except when a spouse is a
1620:
434:
the controlling standard for admitting statements that unavailable witnesses made to other persons was that of
115:
1422:
1198:
541:
and the decisions following it, also radically changed the handling of domestic violence cases by curtailing
1457:
1788:
878:
846:
1644:
1337:
401:
451:
not protecting himself when he stabbed Lee. At trial, the state moved to admit Sylvia's statement under
1850:
1163:
1155:
542:
105:
636:
430:
Admission of out-of-court statements, therefore, is and has been possible. For over 20 years prior to
388:
The statement was allowed into evidence at the trial, and the prosecution relied on it heavily in its
1739:
1532:
1310:
1147:
1059:
920:
518:"testimonial" in nature is not admissible, unless the declarant is unavailable to testify in court,
471:, writing for the majority, expressed concern over the inconsistent results reached by courts under
2125:
1954:
1933:
1636:
1540:
1302:
1286:
1262:
1067:
936:
828:
411:
1994:
1714:
1556:
1441:
1414:
1406:
1246:
1091:
871:
1898:
1668:
1254:
1206:
1024:
505:
concurred in the result, but would have decided the case on narrower grounds, within the older
209:
2155:
2010:
1970:
1874:
1230:
1099:
821:
146:
96:
1838; 72 U.S.L.W. 4229; 63 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1077; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 181
74:
2034:
1978:
1866:
1858:
1660:
1513:
1238:
944:
342:
Mrs. Crawford. Michael Crawford stabbed Lee in the torso. Crawford claimed he had acted in
323:
8:
2163:
2066:
1882:
1751:
1612:
1604:
1596:
1345:
1083:
1032:
908:
863:
529:
237:
455:
The trial court admitted the evidence, "noting several reasons why it was trustworthy."
2187:
2133:
2058:
2026:
1914:
1767:
1628:
1492:
1377:
1369:
1139:
1131:
986:
742:
63:
837:
795:
134:
2050:
2042:
1890:
1834:
1826:
1695:
1572:
1449:
1385:
1361:
1353:
1182:
767:
717:
692:
655:
502:
370:
201:
193:
381:. But Washington invoked a hearsay exception for statements against penal interest.
2171:
2090:
2018:
1962:
1676:
1548:
1294:
389:
369:, Mrs. Crawford could not be compelled to testify by the state, since Washington's
2229:
United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision
414:
reinstated the conviction, ruling that the witness's statement was reliable under
410:, the court determined it was not, and gave several reasons why. Nonetheless, the
1580:
1564:
1397:
1222:
928:
446:
When Michael Crawford was accused of stabbing Kenneth Lee on August 5, 1999, the
406:
354:
299:
233:
221:
77:
2106:
2082:
2074:
1842:
1329:
1115:
476:
468:
245:
213:
318:
decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of
2212:
2098:
1652:
1270:
1075:
771:
721:
696:
392:, stating that it completely refuted the defendant's claim of self defense.
2002:
978:
965:
343:
225:
855:
374:
366:
746:
138:
93:
89:
262:
Scalia, joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
378:
319:
400:
Michael Crawford was convicted at the trial level. However, the
350:
30:
758:: Encouraging and Ensuring the Confrontation of Witnesses".
339:
131:
893:
2224:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
683:: High Court Restores Confrontation Clause Protection".
458:
778:
322:
statements in criminal cases is permitted under the
729:Lininger, Tom (2005). "Prosecuting Batterers After
292:This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
2210:
1787:
349:Both Mr. and Mrs. Crawford were questioned by
1738:
879:
779:Westover, Andrew L.; Thompson, Dori (2008).
679:Friedman, Richard D. (2004). "Adjusting To
270:Rehnquist (in judgment), joined by O'Connor
886:
872:
512:
54:Michael D. Crawford v. State of Washington
2180:Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California
1006:
753:
703:
1512:
728:
678:
964:
907:
708:: The End of Victimless Prosecution?".
2211:
1481:
660:: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
1786:
1737:
1511:
1480:
1005:
963:
906:
867:
464:at the trial and so was unavailable.
395:
18:2004 United States Supreme Court case
600:
598:
596:
583:
581:
579:
577:
564:
562:
459:Supreme Court decision and rationale
314:, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark
2244:Legal history of Washington (state)
1279:Southern Union Co. v. United States
360:
13:
1760:United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
1191:Almendarez-Torres v. United States
1041:Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas
672:
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
2255:
2219:United States Supreme Court cases
1707:Restrictions on cross-examination
806:
760:University of Richmond Law Review
593:
574:
559:
824:36 (2004) is available from:
788:Federal Criminal Defense Journal
29:
1808:United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
2239:2004 in United States case law
1621:Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
1124:Rosales-Lopez v. United States
754:Mosteller, Robert P. (2005). "
622:
610:
494:
1:
2234:Confrontation Clause case law
895:United States Sixth Amendment
710:Seattle University Law Review
552:
421:
333:
1789:Assistance of Counsel Clause
7:
1338:Rassmussen v. United States
704:King-Ries, Andrew (2005). "
402:Washington Court of Appeals
316:United States Supreme Court
10:
2260:
1688:Face-to-face confrontation
1458:Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado
1156:McDonnell v. United States
856:Oyez (oral argument audio)
543:evidence-based prosecution
438:According to the Court in
2144:
2117:
1944:
1925:
1818:
1799:
1795:
1782:
1746:
1740:Compulsory Process Clause
1733:
1706:
1687:
1533:Reynolds v. United States
1524:
1520:
1507:
1487:
1476:
1433:
1396:
1321:
1311:Erlinger v. United States
1174:
1164:United States v. Tsarnaev
1148:Skilling v. United States
1060:Reynolds v. United States
1051:
1016:
1012:
1001:
973:
959:
921:Klopfer v. North Carolina
915:
902:
571:, 541 U.S. 36, 38 (2004).
297:
290:
279:
274:
266:
258:
253:
187:
182:
177:
172:
166:
161:
153:
126:
121:
111:
101:
69:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
2126:Massiah v. United States
1955:Strickland v. Washington
1934:Glasser v. United States
1907:Nichols v. United States
1637:Bullcoming v. New Mexico
1541:Dowdell v. United States
1303:United States v. Haymond
1287:Alleyne v. United States
1263:Cunningham v. California
1068:Glasser v. United States
937:Doggett v. United States
412:Washington Supreme Court
43:Argued November 10, 2003
1995:Glover v. United States
1715:Chambers v. Mississippi
1557:Bruton v. United States
1525:Out-of-court statements
1442:Tanner v. United States
1434:Impeachment of verdicts
1415:Burton v. United States
1407:United States v. Dawson
1247:United States v. Booker
1215:Harris v. United States
1092:Witherspoon v. Illinois
513:Subsequent developments
2118:Uncounseled statements
1946:Ineffective assistance
1899:Pennsylvania v. Finley
1669:Samia v. United States
1589:Crawford v. Washington
1423:Smith v. United States
1255:Washington v. Recuenco
1207:Apprendi v. New Jersey
1199:Jones v. United States
1025:Cheff v. Schnackenberg
814:Crawford v. Washington
794:: 1–24. Archived from
756:Crawford v. Washington
706:Crawford v. Washington
569:Crawford v. Washington
311:Crawford v. Washington
24:Crawford v. Washington
2156:Faretta v. California
2011:Woodford v. Visciotti
1971:Kimmelman v. Morrison
1875:Argersinger v. Hamlin
1231:Blakely v. Washington
1100:Ham v. South Carolina
1007:Impartial Jury Clause
281:U.S. Const. amend. VI
88:124 S. Ct. 1354; 158
45:Decided March 8, 2004
2035:Wright v. Van Patten
1979:Lockhart v. Fretwell
1867:Anders v. California
1859:Gideon v. Wainwright
1661:Hemphill v. New York
1645:Williams v. Illinois
1514:Confrontation Clause
1239:Schriro v. Summerlin
945:Betterman v. Montana
619:, 541 U.S. at 41–42.
324:Confrontation Clause
116:Opinion announcement
112:Opinion announcement
2164:McKaskle v. Wiggins
2067:Padilla v. Kentucky
1883:Gagnon v. Scarpelli
1851:Hamilton v. Alabama
1752:Washington v. Texas
1613:Giles v. California
1605:Whorton v. Bockting
1597:Davis v. Washington
1346:Williams v. Florida
1084:Sheppard v. Maxwell
1033:Duncan v. Louisiana
909:Speedy Trial Clause
847:Library of Congress
735:Virginia Law Review
530:Davis v. Washington
238:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
210:Sandra Day O'Connor
162:Questions presented
2188:Indiana v. Edwards
2134:Brewer v. Williams
2059:Porter v. McCollum
2027:Holland v. Jackson
1987:Williams v. Taylor
1915:Alabama v. Shelton
1768:Taylor v. Illinois
1629:Michigan v. Bryant
1493:Rabe v. Washington
1482:Information Clause
1378:Ramos v. Louisiana
1370:Burch v. Louisiana
1322:Size and unanimity
1140:Morgan v. Illinois
1132:Wainwright v. Witt
987:Presley v. Georgia
801:on March 25, 2009.
477:Sir Walter Raleigh
467:Associate Justice
396:Procedural history
353:after receiving a
198:Associate Justices
2206:
2205:
2202:
2201:
2198:
2197:
2051:Wong v. Belmontes
2043:Bobby v. Van Hook
1891:Scott v. Illinois
1835:Johnson v. Zerbst
1827:Powell v. Alabama
1778:
1777:
1729:
1728:
1725:
1724:
1696:Maryland v. Craig
1573:Illinois v. Allen
1503:
1502:
1472:
1471:
1468:
1467:
1450:Warger v. Shauers
1386:Edwards v. Vannoy
1362:Ballew v. Georgia
1354:Apodaca v. Oregon
1183:Walton v. Arizona
997:
996:
955:
954:
607:, 541 U.S. at 41.
590:, 541 U.S. at 40.
503:William Rehnquist
371:spousal privilege
307:
306:
194:William Rehnquist
2251:
2172:Rock v. Arkansas
2091:Lafler v. Cooper
2019:Wiggins v. Smith
1963:Nix v. Whiteside
1797:
1796:
1784:
1783:
1735:
1734:
1677:Smith v. Arizona
1549:Pointer v. Texas
1522:
1521:
1509:
1508:
1478:
1477:
1295:Hurst v. Florida
1108:Ristaino v. Ross
1014:
1013:
1003:
1002:
961:
960:
904:
903:
888:
881:
874:
865:
864:
860:
854:
851:
845:
842:
836:
833:
827:
802:
800:
785:
775:
750:
725:
700:
666:
665:
659:
651:
649:
647:
642:on July 10, 2011
641:
635:. Archived from
634:
626:
620:
614:
608:
602:
591:
585:
572:
566:
436:Ohio v. Roberts.
390:closing argument
361:Trial proceeding
183:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
2259:
2258:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2194:
2140:
2113:
1940:
1921:
1814:
1791:
1774:
1742:
1721:
1702:
1683:
1581:Ohio v. Roberts
1565:Frazier v. Cupp
1516:
1499:
1483:
1464:
1429:
1398:Vicinage Clause
1392:
1317:
1223:Ring v. Arizona
1170:
1047:
1008:
993:
969:
951:
929:Barker v. Wingo
911:
898:
892:
858:
852:
849:
843:
840:
834:
831:
825:
809:
798:
783:
675:
673:Further reading
670:
669:
653:
652:
645:
643:
639:
632:
630:"Archived copy"
628:
627:
623:
615:
611:
603:
594:
586:
575:
567:
560:
555:
515:
497:
473:Ohio v. Roberts
461:
424:
407:Ohio v. Roberts
398:
363:
355:Miranda warning
336:
328:Sixth Amendment
300:Ohio v. Roberts
293:
236:
234:Clarence Thomas
224:
222:Anthony Kennedy
212:
202:John P. Stevens
149:914 (2003).
97:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
2257:
2247:
2246:
2241:
2236:
2231:
2226:
2221:
2204:
2203:
2200:
2199:
2196:
2195:
2193:
2192:
2184:
2176:
2168:
2160:
2151:
2149:
2148:representation
2142:
2141:
2139:
2138:
2130:
2121:
2119:
2115:
2114:
2112:
2111:
2107:Garza v. Idaho
2103:
2095:
2087:
2083:Premo v. Moore
2079:
2075:Sears v. Upton
2071:
2063:
2055:
2047:
2039:
2031:
2023:
2015:
2007:
1999:
1991:
1983:
1975:
1967:
1959:
1950:
1948:
1942:
1941:
1939:
1938:
1929:
1927:
1923:
1922:
1920:
1919:
1911:
1903:
1895:
1887:
1879:
1871:
1863:
1855:
1847:
1843:Betts v. Brady
1839:
1831:
1822:
1820:
1816:
1815:
1813:
1812:
1803:
1801:
1793:
1792:
1780:
1779:
1776:
1775:
1773:
1772:
1764:
1756:
1747:
1744:
1743:
1731:
1730:
1727:
1726:
1723:
1722:
1720:
1719:
1710:
1708:
1704:
1703:
1701:
1700:
1691:
1689:
1685:
1684:
1682:
1681:
1673:
1665:
1657:
1649:
1641:
1633:
1625:
1617:
1609:
1601:
1593:
1585:
1577:
1569:
1561:
1553:
1545:
1537:
1528:
1526:
1518:
1517:
1505:
1504:
1501:
1500:
1498:
1497:
1488:
1485:
1484:
1474:
1473:
1470:
1469:
1466:
1465:
1463:
1462:
1454:
1446:
1437:
1435:
1431:
1430:
1428:
1427:
1419:
1411:
1402:
1400:
1394:
1393:
1391:
1390:
1382:
1374:
1366:
1358:
1350:
1342:
1334:
1330:Maxwell v. Dow
1325:
1323:
1319:
1318:
1316:
1315:
1307:
1299:
1291:
1283:
1275:
1267:
1259:
1251:
1243:
1235:
1227:
1219:
1211:
1203:
1195:
1187:
1178:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1169:
1168:
1160:
1152:
1144:
1136:
1128:
1120:
1116:Adams v. Texas
1112:
1104:
1096:
1088:
1080:
1072:
1064:
1055:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1046:
1045:
1037:
1029:
1020:
1018:
1010:
1009:
999:
998:
995:
994:
992:
991:
983:
974:
971:
970:
957:
956:
953:
952:
950:
949:
941:
933:
925:
916:
913:
912:
900:
899:
891:
890:
883:
876:
868:
862:
861:
829:Google Scholar
808:
807:External links
805:
804:
803:
776:
751:
741:(3): 747–822.
726:
701:
674:
671:
668:
667:
621:
609:
592:
573:
557:
556:
554:
551:
514:
511:
496:
493:
469:Antonin Scalia
460:
457:
423:
420:
397:
394:
362:
359:
335:
332:
305:
304:
295:
294:
291:
288:
287:
277:
276:
272:
271:
268:
264:
263:
260:
256:
255:
251:
250:
249:
248:
246:Stephen Breyer
214:Antonin Scalia
199:
196:
191:
185:
184:
180:
179:
175:
174:
170:
169:
164:
163:
159:
158:
155:
151:
150:
137:(Wash. 2002);
128:
124:
123:
119:
118:
113:
109:
108:
103:
99:
98:
87:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2256:
2245:
2242:
2240:
2237:
2235:
2232:
2230:
2227:
2225:
2222:
2220:
2217:
2216:
2214:
2190:
2189:
2185:
2182:
2181:
2177:
2174:
2173:
2169:
2166:
2165:
2161:
2158:
2157:
2153:
2152:
2150:
2147:
2143:
2136:
2135:
2131:
2128:
2127:
2123:
2122:
2120:
2116:
2109:
2108:
2104:
2101:
2100:
2099:Buck v. Davis
2096:
2093:
2092:
2088:
2085:
2084:
2080:
2077:
2076:
2072:
2069:
2068:
2064:
2061:
2060:
2056:
2053:
2052:
2048:
2045:
2044:
2040:
2037:
2036:
2032:
2029:
2028:
2024:
2021:
2020:
2016:
2013:
2012:
2008:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1997:
1996:
1992:
1989:
1988:
1984:
1981:
1980:
1976:
1973:
1972:
1968:
1965:
1964:
1960:
1957:
1956:
1952:
1951:
1949:
1947:
1943:
1936:
1935:
1931:
1930:
1928:
1926:Conflict-free
1924:
1917:
1916:
1912:
1909:
1908:
1904:
1901:
1900:
1896:
1893:
1892:
1888:
1885:
1884:
1880:
1877:
1876:
1872:
1869:
1868:
1864:
1861:
1860:
1856:
1853:
1852:
1848:
1845:
1844:
1840:
1837:
1836:
1832:
1829:
1828:
1824:
1823:
1821:
1817:
1810:
1809:
1805:
1804:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1785:
1781:
1770:
1769:
1765:
1762:
1761:
1757:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1748:
1745:
1741:
1736:
1732:
1717:
1716:
1712:
1711:
1709:
1705:
1698:
1697:
1693:
1692:
1690:
1686:
1679:
1678:
1674:
1671:
1670:
1666:
1663:
1662:
1658:
1655:
1654:
1653:Ohio v. Clark
1650:
1647:
1646:
1642:
1639:
1638:
1634:
1631:
1630:
1626:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1615:
1614:
1610:
1607:
1606:
1602:
1599:
1598:
1594:
1591:
1590:
1586:
1583:
1582:
1578:
1575:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1510:
1506:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1489:
1486:
1479:
1475:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1452:
1451:
1447:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1436:
1432:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1409:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1401:
1399:
1395:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1348:
1347:
1343:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1332:
1331:
1327:
1326:
1324:
1320:
1313:
1312:
1308:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1276:
1273:
1272:
1271:Oregon v. Ice
1268:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1233:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1177:
1173:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1158:
1157:
1153:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1093:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1076:Irvin v. Dowd
1073:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1054:
1050:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1035:
1034:
1030:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1004:
1000:
989:
988:
984:
981:
980:
976:
975:
972:
967:
962:
958:
947:
946:
942:
939:
938:
934:
931:
930:
926:
923:
922:
918:
917:
914:
910:
905:
901:
896:
889:
884:
882:
877:
875:
870:
869:
866:
857:
848:
839:
830:
823:
819:
815:
811:
810:
797:
793:
789:
782:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
677:
676:
663:
657:
646:September 20,
638:
631:
625:
618:
613:
606:
601:
599:
597:
589:
584:
582:
580:
578:
570:
565:
563:
558:
550:
548:
544:
540:
536:
533:
531:
524:
521:
510:
508:
504:
501:
500:Chief Justice
492:
489:
484:
480:
478:
474:
470:
465:
456:
454:
449:
444:
441:
437:
433:
428:
419:
417:
413:
409:
408:
403:
393:
391:
386:
382:
380:
376:
372:
368:
358:
356:
352:
347:
345:
341:
331:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
302:
301:
296:
289:
286:
282:
278:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
254:Case opinions
252:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
195:
192:
190:Chief Justice
189:
188:
186:
181:
176:
171:
165:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
133:
129:
125:
120:
117:
114:
110:
107:
106:Oral argument
104:
100:
95:
91:
85:
84:
79:
76:
72:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
2186:
2178:
2170:
2162:
2154:
2132:
2124:
2105:
2097:
2089:
2081:
2073:
2065:
2057:
2049:
2041:
2033:
2025:
2017:
2009:
2003:Bell v. Cone
2001:
1993:
1985:
1977:
1969:
1961:
1953:
1932:
1913:
1905:
1897:
1889:
1881:
1873:
1865:
1857:
1849:
1841:
1833:
1825:
1806:
1766:
1758:
1750:
1713:
1694:
1675:
1667:
1659:
1651:
1643:
1635:
1627:
1619:
1611:
1603:
1595:
1588:
1587:
1579:
1571:
1563:
1555:
1547:
1539:
1531:
1491:
1456:
1448:
1440:
1421:
1418:(1905, 1906)
1413:
1405:
1384:
1376:
1368:
1360:
1352:
1344:
1336:
1328:
1309:
1301:
1293:
1285:
1277:
1269:
1261:
1253:
1245:
1237:
1229:
1221:
1213:
1205:
1197:
1189:
1181:
1162:
1154:
1146:
1138:
1130:
1122:
1114:
1106:
1098:
1090:
1082:
1074:
1066:
1058:
1052:Impartiality
1039:
1031:
1023:
1017:Availability
985:
979:In re Oliver
977:
966:Public Trial
943:
935:
927:
919:
813:
796:the original
791:
787:
763:
759:
755:
738:
734:
730:
713:
709:
705:
688:
684:
680:
644:. Retrieved
637:the original
624:
616:
612:
604:
587:
568:
546:
538:
537:
528:
525:
519:
516:
506:
498:
487:
485:
481:
472:
466:
462:
452:
447:
445:
439:
435:
431:
429:
425:
415:
405:
399:
387:
383:
364:
348:
344:self-defense
337:
310:
309:
308:
298:
275:Laws applied
241:
229:
226:David Souter
217:
205:
122:Case history
81:
53:
15:
1819:Appointment
1175:Facts found
495:Concurrence
375:complainant
267:Concurrence
141:. granted,
2213:Categories
685:Crim. Just
553:References
422:Discussion
334:Background
154:Subsequent
94:U.S. LEXIS
92:177; 2004
60:Docket no.
772:0566-2389
722:1078-1927
697:0047-2352
539:Crawford,
432:Crawford,
90:L. Ed. 2d
70:Citations
897:case law
812:Text of
731:Crawford
681:Crawford
656:cite web
617:Crawford
605:Crawford
588:Crawford
547:Crawford
488:Crawford
453:Roberts.
440:Roberts,
259:Majority
102:Argument
766:: 511.
747:3649456
716:: 301.
507:Roberts
448:Roberts
416:Roberts
379:hearsay
326:of the
320:hearsay
173:Holding
64:02-9410
2191:(2008)
2183:(2000)
2175:(1987)
2167:(1984)
2159:(1975)
2146:Pro se
2137:(1977)
2129:(1963)
2110:(2019)
2102:(2017)
2094:(2012)
2086:(2011)
2078:(2010)
2070:(2010)
2062:(2009)
2054:(2009)
2046:(2009)
2038:(2008)
2030:(2004)
2022:(2003)
2014:(2002)
2006:(2002)
1998:(2001)
1990:(2000)
1982:(1993)
1974:(1986)
1966:(1986)
1958:(1984)
1937:(1942)
1918:(2002)
1910:(1994)
1902:(1987)
1894:(1979)
1886:(1973)
1878:(1972)
1870:(1967)
1862:(1963)
1854:(1961)
1846:(1942)
1838:(1938)
1830:(1932)
1811:(2006)
1800:Choice
1771:(1988)
1763:(1982)
1755:(1967)
1718:(1973)
1699:(1990)
1680:(2024)
1672:(2023)
1664:(2022)
1656:(2015)
1648:(2012)
1640:(2011)
1632:(2011)
1624:(2009)
1616:(2008)
1608:(2007)
1600:(2006)
1592:(2004)
1584:(1980)
1576:(1970)
1568:(1969)
1560:(1968)
1552:(1965)
1544:(1911)
1536:(1878)
1496:(1972)
1461:(2017)
1453:(2014)
1445:(1987)
1426:(2023)
1410:(1853)
1389:(2021)
1381:(2020)
1373:(1979)
1365:(1978)
1357:(1972)
1349:(1970)
1341:(1905)
1333:(1900)
1314:(2024)
1306:(2019)
1298:(2016)
1290:(2013)
1282:(2012)
1274:(2009)
1266:(2007)
1258:(2006)
1250:(2005)
1242:(2004)
1234:(2004)
1226:(2002)
1218:(2002)
1210:(2000)
1202:(1999)
1194:(1998)
1186:(1990)
1167:(2022)
1159:(2016)
1151:(2010)
1143:(1992)
1135:(1985)
1127:(1981)
1119:(1980)
1111:(1976)
1103:(1973)
1095:(1968)
1087:(1966)
1079:(1961)
1071:(1942)
1063:(1878)
1044:(1989)
1036:(1968)
1028:(1966)
990:(2010)
982:(1948)
968:Clause
948:(2016)
940:(1992)
932:(1972)
924:(1967)
859:
853:
850:
844:
841:
838:Justia
835:
832:
826:
770:
745:
720:
695:
351:police
303:(1980)
244:
242:·
240:
232:
230:·
228:
220:
218:·
216:
208:
206:·
204:
820:
799:(PDF)
784:(PDF)
743:JSTOR
691:: 4.
640:(PDF)
633:(PDF)
367:trial
145:
127:Prior
822:U.S.
768:ISSN
718:ISSN
693:ISSN
662:link
648:2008
486:The
340:rape
168:him?
157:None
147:U.S.
139:cert
132:P.3d
83:more
75:U.S.
73:541
818:541
733:".
527:in
520:and
365:At
285:XIV
143:539
135:656
2215::
816:,
790:.
786:.
764:39
762:.
739:91
737:.
714:28
712:.
689:19
687:.
658:}}
654:{{
595:^
576:^
561:^
283:,
78:36
887:e
880:t
873:v
792:1
774:.
749:.
724:.
699:.
664:)
650:.
532:,
86:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.