Crawford V Washington

2d 177 2004 brief fact summary.

Crawford v washington.

36 2004 147 wash. Html version pdf version. W here testimonial statements are at issue the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation facts. Washington case brief rule of law.

Petitioner was tried for assault and attempted murder. Decided by rehnquist court. The petitioner crawford the petitioner brought this action after he was convicted of stabbing a man who tried to rape his wife when the prosecution was allowed to present her recorded statement against him. The court permitted the tape recorded statement into evidence.

Oral argument november 10 2003. The state sought to introduce a recorded statement that petitioner s wife sylvia had made during police interrogation as evidence that the stabbing was not in self defense. The prosecution tried to introduce a recorded statement by crawford s wife where she described the stabbing. 36 2004 is a united states supreme court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment the court held that cross examination is required to admit prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable.

36 2004 united states supreme court case facts key issues and holdings and reasonings online today. Lower court washington supreme court. Washington 02 9410 541 u s. Certiorari to the supreme court of washington.

Petitioner was tried for assault and attempted murder. Crawford was charged with attempted murder and assault of a man who he alleged tried to rape his wife. Petitioner stabbed a man who allegedly tried to rape hi. Opinion announcement march 08 2004.

November 10 2003 decided. Washington syllabus timonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior op portunity for cross examination. English authorities and early state cases indicate that this was the common law at the time of the founding. Opinion of the court scalia concurring opinion rehnquist petitioner michael d.

Argued november 10 2003 decided march 8 2004. Statement of the facts. Html version pdf version. 2d 424 54 p 3d 656 reversed and remanded.