In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court held the federal Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial,” unless that witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him or her. In a post-Crawford string of Confrontation Clause decisions the Supreme Court as well as the Court of Appeals have labored to flesh out what it means for a statement to be “testimonial.” Recently, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals handed down decisions in Ohio v. Clark, 135 S.Ct. 2173 (2015) and the cases People v. Garcia and People v. DeJesus (one decision), 25 N.Y.3d 77 (2015), respectively, which further address this issue.
Both decisions merit attention, the former as it is a major step forward by the Supreme Court in clarifying the meaning of “testimonial,” and the latter as it shows the strong commitment by the Court of Appeals to policing prosecutorial efforts to evade the Crawford rule.
‘Ohio v. Clark’
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
