Marty made a statement to the police during their investigation of Sam Harris for a series of neighborhood burglaries that occurred the previous week. Harris was arrested 2 weeks later following the police investigation. Marty died in a car accident 2 weeks before Harris’s trial. The prosecution wants to introduce portions of Marty’s statement at Harris’s trial. The defense attorney objects. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Washington, how will the judge rule on this issue?

Question

a. Marty’s testimony will be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule as established in Ohio v. Roberts.
b. Marty’s statement can be admitted if the judge finds sufficient indicia of reliability, despite the fact that the statement had never been subjected to cross-examination by the defendant.
c. Because Marty’s testimony was provided during an official police investigation, it is presumed reliable and was subjected to the equivalent of cross-examiner by a neutral party and, as such, is admissible in Harris’ trial.
d. Marty’s statement will be inadmissible because it is testimonial in nature and was never subjected to cross-examination by a lawyer representing Harris.

Answer 1

d. Marty’s statement will be inadmissible because it is testimonial in nature and was never subjected to cross-examination by a lawyer representing Harris.