Title: Taking Confrontation Seriously: Does Crawford Mean That Confessions Must Be Cross-Examined?
Abstract: This article focuses on the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington to one subcategory of party admissions: defendants' confessions taken by police officers in the course of interrogations. Such statements fall within Crawford’s core class of statements, which must be subjected to cross-examination either at the time they are made or at trial in order to satisfy the Confrontation Clause. In some post-Crawford cases, defendants have argued that the failure to comply with Crawford should bar the prosecution from using their confessions. The lower courts have uniformly held that Crawford does apply to a defendant's own confession because such statements are defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence as not hearsay, and Crawford applies only to testimonial hearsay. This article argues that, as a definitional matter, Crawford does apply to confessions, but that they should be exempted from Crawford's cross-examination requirement on historical grounds.
Publication Year: 2012
Publication Date: 2012-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot