|
Michael Crawford stabbed a man who
allegedly tried to rape his wife, Sylvia. At his trial, the
State played for the jury Sylvia’s tape-recorded statement to
the police describing the stabbing, even though he had no
opportunity for cross-examination. The Washington Supreme Court
upheld Crawford’s conviction after determining that Sylvia’s
statement was reliable. The question presented to the US Supreme
Court is whether this procedure complied with
Sixth Amendment’s
guarantee that, “[in] all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses
against him.”
The Supreme Court of the United States held that the use of
Sylvia’s statement violated the confrontation clause because,
where testimonial statements are at issue, the only sign of
reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is
confrontation.
The State charged Crawford with assault and attempted murder. At
trial, he claimed self-defense. Sylvia did not testify because
of the state marital privilege, which generally bars a spouse
from testifying without the other spouse’s consent. In
Washington, this privilege does not extend to a spouse’s
out-of-court statements admissible under a hearsay exception, so
the State sought to introduce Sylvia’s tape-recorded statements
to the police as evidence that the stabbing was not in
self-defense. Noting that Sylvia had admitted she led Crawford
to Lee’s apartment and thus had facilitated the assault, the
State invoked the hearsay exception for statements against penal
interest, Wash. Rule Evid. 804(b)(3) (2003).
Crawford countered that, state law
notwithstanding, admitting the evidence would violate his
federal constitutional right to be “confronted with the
witnesses against him.”
The Supreme Court’s decision will
have a significant impact on law enforcement since testimonial
statements include those taken by police officers in the course
of interrogation. In states like California, officers have often
testified for others during the preliminary hearing in an effort
to streamline the hearing and to prevent an undue number of
witnesses from being called.
ADA Paul Dedinsky of the Milwaukee DA’s office offers the
following guidelines:
After analyzing whether the statement qualifies as an Excited
Utterance, the major distinction between Testimonial vs.
Non-testimonial statements (whether statement to law enforcement
officer was “interrogation” vs. “non-interrogation”) must form
the crux of the analysis.
Non-testimonial? If so,
Crawford does not apply. Rules of Evidence apply. State law
applies:
Statement? -or-
Testimonial? If so, Crawford
applies.
The TEST for “knowingly
interrogation” is whether the statement was made under
circumstances that would lead an objective witness to reasonably
believe that the statement would be available for use at a later
trial.
The
American Prosecutors Research Institute
is also working on providing guidance for criminal justice
personnel in response to this recent decision.
|
