Davis v. Washington
- Decided
- June 19, 2006
- Docket
- 05-5224
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,179 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that statements are testimonial when circumstances objectively indicate that the primary purpose of an interrogation is to establish events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution — v. People (2020)
- holding that the confrontation clause may not be “evaded by having a note-taking policeman recite the . . . testimony of the declarant” (emphasis omitted) — State v. Lui (2014)
- holding that witness statements made during a police interrogation are testimonial, unless the purpose of the interrogation is to meet an ongoing emergency — State v. Wright (2007)
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
[*817] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases require us to determine when statements made to law enforcement personnel during a 911 call or at a crime scene are “testimonial” and thus subject to the requirements of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
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.