Opinion ID: 2206409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Solemnity

Text: Thus, there would appear to be two components to a testimonial statement. First, it must be made in solemn fashion. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51, 124 S.Ct. at 1364, 158 L.Ed.2d at 192; Davis, 547 U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2276, 165 L.Ed.2d at 240 (quoting Crawford and noting that [t]he solemnity of even an oral declaration of relevant past fact to an investigating officer is well enough established by the severe consequences that can attend a deliberate falsehood). In fact, the requirement of solemnity is a matter with regard to which the Davis majority and dissent were in agreement. See Davis, 547 U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2282, 165 L.Ed.2d at 246 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part) (the plain terms of the `testimony' definition we endorsed [in Crawford ] necessarily require some degree of solemnity before a statement can be deemed `testimonial'). The majority and dissent differed on whether the statements at issue in that case satisfied the solemnity requirement, with the majority reasoning that solemnity was established by the potential severe consequences of lying to a police officer ( Davis, 547 U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2276, 165 L.Ed.2d at 240), whereas the dissent would have required the statements to be made in a setting with a higher degree of formality, possibly only if Miranda warnings had been issued ( Davis, 547 U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2282-83, 165 L.Ed.2d at 246-47 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part)).