Explain how the Supreme Court of the United States redefined the Confrontation Clause in Crawford v. Washington (2004).
What will be an ideal response?
In rejecting the "firmly rooted" analysis adopted in prior cases, the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause bans use at trial of uncross-examined statements of absent declarants when the statements are "testimonial." Such statements include testimony at a formal proceeding such as trial, preliminary hearing, and grand jury. It also includes testimony given to police or other government personnel during interrogation. The Court further indicated that this ban might apply to any statement "made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial."
You might also like to view...
The American response to drugs in the twentieth century is directly related to international affairs and trade with China
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Cyberespionage can be classified into which of the following types?
a. economic b. political c. military d. both economic and political
______ are made when the oil and perspiration present on fingertips are transferred to another surface but are invisible.
a. Visible transferred prints b. Visible impression prints c. Latent prints d. Invisible transferred prints
Hearsay information from an informant can establish probable cause, provided it is ________ by a police officer
Fill in the blank(s) with correct word