Case
Crawford v. Washington
Answer: Crawford v. Washington. In 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Court overruled Ohio v. Roberts’s reliability test for the Confrontation Clause and held that testimonial statements offered for their truth are admissible only if the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross‑examine. Nontestimonial hearsay remains governed by evidence law.
Rule to remember
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004): The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements offered for their truth unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross‑examine. The decision rejected Ohio v. Roberts’s reliability framework and refocused the inquiry on confrontation. Nontestimonial hearsay is left to ordinary evidence rules.
Key elements and checks
- Criminal prosecution; statement offered against the accused.
- Statement is testimonial (e.g., affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony).
- Declarant is unavailable to testify at trial.
- Defendant had a prior opportunity to cross‑examine the declarant.
- If the declarant testifies and is subject to cross‑examination, no Confrontation Clause bar.
- Statements offered for a non‑truth purpose and nontestimonial hearsay are generally outside the Clause.
In the source’s words
“Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.”
CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON (opinion)
Application varies at the margins across states (e.g., treatment of emergency calls, certificates, and similar records) until bounded by later U.S. Supreme Court decisions, though all must follow the federal constitutional standard announced in Crawford.