Home      Login

Abstract: 

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), held that defendants had a right to confront witnesses in criminal cases, and thus barred testimonial statements of a witness whom the defendant had not had a prior opportunity to cross-examine (unless the witness appeared at the trial). But the court left open just what was a “testimonial” statement. Crawford was an important decision because it called into question the technique of prosecuting batterers when their battered victims did not attend trial, saying that reliable hearsay could no longer be admitted into evidence without the witness being available, unless it was not testimonial. In Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana, 547 U.S. ___ (2006), decided on June 19, 2006, the Court clarified the meaning of “testimonial” statements in greater detail.

Keywords: forfeiture doctrine; implications of Davis case

Affiliations:  1: Editor, Domestic Violence Report.