Crawford v. Washington
- Decided
- March 8, 2004
- Docket
- 02-9410
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 14,756 timesOverruled in part (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled in part (not yet verified) · State v. Miller
What later courts said
- holding that out-of-court statements that are testimonial are barred unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine — Commonwealth v. Jones (2006)
- holding that for testimonial hearsay to be admissible, declarant must be unavailable and defendant must have had a prior opportunity to cross-examine — Rangel v. State (2006)
- holding that for testimonial hearsay to be admissible, de-clarant must be unavailable and defendant must have had a prior opportunity to cross-examine — Rangel v. State (2006)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Michael Crawford stabbed a man who allegedly tried to rape his wife, Sylvia. At his trial, the State played for the jury Sylvia’s tape-recorded statement to the police describing the stabbing, even though he had no opportunity for cross-examination. The Washington Supreme Court upheld petitioner’s conviction after determining that Sylvia’s statement was reliable. The question presented is whether this procedure complied with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
I
Cite this
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.