Crawford V Washington

Syllabus opinion scalia concurrence rehnquist html version pdf version.

Crawford v washington.

Html version pdf version. Opinion of the court scalia concurring opinion rehnquist petitioner michael d. November 10 2003 decided. The court permitted the tape recorded statement into evidence.

The state sought to introduce a recorded statement that petitioner s wife sylvia had made during police interrogation as evidence that the stabbing was not in self defense. Opinion announcement march 08 2004. Decided by rehnquist court. W here testimonial statements are at issue the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation facts.

Oral argument november 10 2003. 36 2004 is a united states supreme court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment the court held that cross examination is required to admit prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable. 36 2004 147 wash. Crawford was charged with attempted murder and assault of a man who he alleged tried to rape his wife.

English authorities and early state cases indicate that this was the common law at the time of the founding. Washington 02 9410 541 u s. Statement of the facts. Washington case brief rule of law.

Written and curated by real attorneys at quimbee. 2d 424 54 p 3d 656 reversed and remanded. Certiorari to the supreme court of washington. 2d 177 2004 brief fact summary.

Lower court washington supreme court. Petitioner stabbed a man who allegedly tried to rape hi. Html version pdf version. The prosecution tried to introduce a recorded statement by crawford s wife where she described the stabbing.

Petitioner was tried for assault and attempted murder. Petitioner was tried for assault and attempted murder. Washington syllabus timonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior op portunity for cross examination. Washington supreme court of the united states.