Confronting Crawford V. Washington in the Lower Courts

By Keenan, Dylan O. | The Yale Law Journal, December 2012 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Confronting Crawford V. Washington in the Lower Courts


Keenan, Dylan O., The Yale Law Journal


INTRODUCTION

I.   CONFRONTATION CLAUSE DOCTRINE BEFORE AND AFTER CRAWFORD
     A. The Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation Before Crawford
     B. Crawford's Reformulation of Confrontation Clause Doctrine
     C. Davis's Refinement of Crawford
     D. Further Refinements: Melendez-Diaz, Bryant, and Williams

II.  EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
     A. The Data Set
     B. Descriptive Statistics
     C. Stepwise Logistic Regression Analysis
     D. Limitations of the Data

III. ANALYSIS
     A. The Confrontation Clause, Consistently
     B. Lower-Court Decisions and the Meaning of Confrontation

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX A: CODING

APPENDIX B: INTERCODER RELIABILITY

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court's decisions in Crawford v. Washington (1) and its progeny reshaped Confrontation Clause doctrine. (2) Repudiating the Court's earlier focus on the reliability of out-of-court hearsay, Crawford held that the Confrontation Clause (3) provides defendants with a right to cross-examine only those declarants who made "testimonial" out-of-court statements. (4) The Court did not, however, comprehensively define testimonial statements in either Crawford or any of its subsequent Confrontation Clause opinions. (5) Most academics and lower courts consider Crawford's reformulation of Confrontation Clause doctrine to be a radical one. (6) A minority argues that Crawford did not depart quite so substantially from the pre-Crawford doctrine. (7) The descriptive debate about the consequences of Crawford is supplemented by a lively debate about the normative desirability and legal reasoning of the decision. (8) Despite those disagreements, scholars generally agree that Crawford's stated doctrine is vague and that lower courts have struggled to apply it.

In this Note, I focus on that final problem: the ambiguity of Crawford-line decisions. Crawford announced a new rule for evaluating Confrontation Clause challenges, but it offered three different tests for applying the rule. (9) Subsequent decisions added a fourth test but failed to eliminate any of the original ambiguity. (10) Not surprisingly, scholarly "[c]riticism of Crawford's ambiguity abounds." (11) The Crawford line has been described as "vague[]," (12) "uncertain," (13) "unpredictable," (14) a "mess," (15) "almost arbitrary," (16) "incoherent," (17) and "an exercise in fiction." (18) These descriptions appear reasonable. To apply Crawford, lower courts must decide whether a statement is testimonial. Yet the Court has repeatedly refused to define testimonial statements, and has instead gestured towards certain "clues" that might indicate whether a statement is testimonial. (19) Lower-court splits lend credence to these critiques. In the immediate wake of Crawford, states and circuits split on how to apply Crawford in common circumstances: 911 phone calls, (20) statements by children, (21) and forensic analyses. (22) This criticism only intensified in the wake of Michigan v. Bryant (23) and Williams v. Illinois, (24) two of the Court's most recent Confrontation Clause cases.

This Note challenges the conventional wisdom about Crawford's vagueness through a rare large-scale empirical analysis of post-Crawford decisions. (25) Although the Supreme Court's doctrine is quite muddled, (26) this Note presents empirical evidence that lower courts have reached predictable and consistent results in Confrontation Clause cases. (27) This evidence shows that lower courts effectively employ a two-step process. (28) First, lower courts almost never apply the Confrontation Clause to statements not made to a state actor, finding that such statements are nontestimonial under Crawford. Second, lower courts are much less likely to find even statements to state actors to be testimonial when those statements are made in the context of a medical emergency.

After presenting the results of my empirical analysis, I argue that this two-step approach to Confrontation Clause cases is not only consistent but also defensible.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Confronting Crawford V. Washington in the Lower Courts
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?