Expanding the Confrontation Clause and Testimonial Hearsay Statements

• Author: Fred E. Knowles,Darrell L. Ross
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016811415027
• Date: 01 September 2011
• Published date: 01 September 2011
• Subject Matter: Recent Legal Developments

Recent Legal Developments

Expanding the Confrontation

Clause and Testimonial

Hearsay Statements:

Michigan v. Bryant

Darrell L. Ross

1

and Fred E. Knowles

1

Abstract

In its 2010 term, the U.S. Supreme Court elaborated on law enforcement procedures in their

decision of Michigan v. Bryant (2011) by analyzing the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause

regarding statements obtained by police officers during an initial investigation. The court

examined the statement of a mortally wounded victimwho,beforedying,identifiedtheshooter

as well as the location of the shooting. In a 6-2 decision the court held that a statement given

to police by a wounded crime victim identifying the person who shot him may be admitted as

evidence at the trial if the victim dies before trial and thus does not appear. Because the primary

purpose of the interrogation was to enable police to deal with an ongoing emergency, the

statements resulting from that interrogation were nontestimonial and could be admitted without

violating the Confrontation Clause.

Keywords

sixth amendment, confrontation clause, hearsay, nontestimonial statement, ongoing emergency,

witnesses

Introduction

The overarching goal of the Sixth Amendment is a fair trial and essential to this tenet is the right of

the accused to confront and cross-examine witnesses or victims. The Confrontation Clause provides

that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the wit-

nesses against him. With some exception, the witnesses must appear in Court and make the accusa-

tions face-to-face.

Out-of-court statements, made in affidavits or written testimony, are allowed frequently in civil

cases but rarely in criminal cases. This is because of the serious consequences that come with a crim-

inal conviction. One purpose of the Confrontation Clause is to prevent out-of-court statements from

1

Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Darrell L Ross, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice, Valdosta State University, 1500 North

Patterson Street, Valdosta, GA 31698, USA

Email: dross@valdosta.edu

Criminal Justice Review

36(3) 375-386

ª2011 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016811415027

http://cjr.sagepub.com