For what proposition does the U.S. Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington stand?
What will be an ideal response?
In the 2004 case of Crawford v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that some hearsay evidence, that which contains "testimonial" statements, is inadmissible in a criminal prosecution if the original declarant who made the out-of-court statement is unavailable to testify unless the defendant had the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witness in an earlier proceeding. Thus, with one decision, the Court unraveled many years of judicial precedents that justified many of the exceptions on the basis of trustworthiness and reliability. The Court, in overturning its prior decisions that found the exceptions did not violate those constitutional principles, is now saying that the Constitution does require confrontation and the opportunity for cross-examination if the hearsay evidence is a testimonial statement.
You might also like to view...
What information from witnesses should be sought regarding perpetrators?
What will be an ideal response?
Case studies in criminal justice research have a sample size of ______ subject(s).
Fill in the blank(s) with the appropriate word(s).
What is the hands-off doctrine, and in what case did the U.S. Supreme Court abandon it?
What will be an ideal response?
Which of these choices is a reason why females who are on the streets due to impoverished homes turn to crimes that exploit their sexuality?
A) The money they make is more than they have ever had and too hard to turn down. B) Apart from their sexuality, these females have little value to trade and feel compelled to utilize their one resource. C) They have an inner urge they can't resist once controls are removed. D) It is a subconscious way to self-defeat through guilt and shame.