In criminal trials, defense objections to hearsay from unavailable witnesses include a constitutional claim — introduction of the evidence violates the right of confrontation. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington changed the landscape of confrontation analysis, limiting the reach of the Sixth Amendment guarantee to hearsay denominated “testimonial.” At the same time, Crawford and the cases that followed declined to comprehensively define this category, instead applying a case-by-case approach.
On Feb. 28, the Supreme Court did this yet again in Michigan v. Bryant . This article analyzes Bryant for its holding, the principles it now applies in analyzing hearsay and confrontation rights, and the issues that remain unanswered.
This content has been archived.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]
