Synopsis of Crawford v. Washington in California Criminal Cases

January 26, 2023

Crawford v. Washington was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, dealt with the issue of whether the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause was violated when out-of-court testimonial statements were admitted into evidence at trial. The Court’s decision established that the admission of such statements violates the Confrontation Clause unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

Crawford involved the defendant, Michael Crawford, who was charged with assault and attempted murder in Washington State. At trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of the victim’s wife, who was not present at the time of the crime, but who had made statements to the police about what the victim had told her about the incident. Crawford argued that the admission of this testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with Crawford, ruling that the admission of the victim’s wife’s testimonial statements violated the Confrontation Clause. The Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him and that this right is violated when testimonial statements are admitted into evidence without the opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine the witness.

The Court noted that the Confrontation Clause applies to out-of-court testimonial statements, which are statements that are made with the expectation that they will be used in a criminal trial. The Court explained that such statements are admissible only if the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The holding established the principle that the admission of out-of-court testimonial statements violates the Confrontation Clause unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. This principle has been widely applied by courts across the United States, and it has had a significant impact on the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal trials.

Crawford also clarified that the Confrontation Clause applies only to out-of-court statements that are testimonial in nature, which are statements that are made with the expectation that they will be used in a criminal trial. Non-testimonial statements, such as excited utterances or spontaneous statements, are not covered by the Confrontation Clause and are generally admissible under traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule.

In conclusion, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington established that the admission of out-of-court testimonial statements violates the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. This principle has had a significant impact on the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal trials, and it has been widely applied by courts across the United States. Additionally, the case clarified that the Confrontation Clause applies only to out-of-court statements that are testimonial in nature, and non-testimonial statements are not covered by the Confrontation Clause. This case illustrates the importance of the Confrontation Clause in ensuring a fair trial and protecting the rights of defendants.

If you’ve been charged with a crime, then contact the Law Offices of John D. Rogers today. Call us to schedule a free confidential consultation with an experienced Orange County criminal defense attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


7 − = six

In the Media
abc 7 kcal 2 kcal 9 LA Weekly Los Angeles Times NBC

Contact Us For A Free Case Evaluation

(949) 625-4487
4000 MacArthur Blvd. East Tower Suite 615 Newport Beach, CA 92660

Contact Us

24 Hour Response Time