Opinion ID: 1838003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: is lewis sound law today?

Text: Lewis was altogether correct in recognizing there is a right of confrontation but would today be incorrect in treating the right of confrontation as absolute. [5] As Justice Stewart of the United States Supreme Court wrote in Dutton v Evans, 400 US 74, 80; 91 S Ct 210; 27 L Ed 2d 213 (1970): It is not argued, nor could it be, that the constitutional right to confrontation requires that no hearsay evidence can ever be introduced. In the Pointer [v Texas, 380 US 400, 407; 85 S Ct 1065; 13 L Ed 2d 923 (1965)] case itself, we referred to the decisions of this Court that have approved the admission of hearsay: `This Court has recognized the admissibility against an accused of dying declarations, Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 151 [13 S Ct 50; 36 L Ed 917 (1892)], and of testimony of a deceased witness who has testified at a former trial, Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 240-244 [15 S Ct 337; 39 L Ed 409 (1895)]. See also Dowdell v. United States, supra, 221 U.S., at 330 [31 S Ct 590; 55 L Ed 753 (1911)]; Kirby v United States, supra, 174 U.S., at 61 [19 S Ct 574; 43 L Ed 890 (1899)].    There are other analogous situations which might not fall within the scope of the constitutional rule requiring confrontation of witnesses.'