Document: 541 U.S. 36 CRAWFORDv.WASHINGTON. No. 02-9410. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 10, 2003. Decided March 8, 2004. Petitioner was tried for assault and attempted murder. The State sought to introduce a recorded statement that petitioner's wife Sylvia had made during police interrogation, as evidence the stabbing not in self-defense. did testify at trial because Washington's marital privilege. argued admitting would violate his Sixth Amendment right be "confronted with witnesses against him." Under Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56, does bar admission an unavailable witness's criminal defendant if bears "adequate `indicia reliability,'" test met when either falls within "firmly rooted hearsay exception" or "particularized guarantees trustworthiness." Id., 66. court admitted on latter ground. upheld conviction, deeming reliable it nearly identical to, i. e., interlocked with, own police, both were ambiguous whether victim drawn weapon before petitioner assaulted him. Held: State's use Sylvia's violated Confrontation Clause because, where testimonial statements are issue, only indicium reliability sufficient satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation. Pp. 42-69. (a) Clause's text alone resolve this case, so turns historical background. That history supports two principles. First, principal evil which directed civil-law mode procedure, particularly ex parte examinations accused. primary object hearsay, interrogations by law enforcement officers fall squarely class. Second, Framers have allowed witness who appear unless he prior opportunity cross-examination. English authorities early state cases indicate common time founding. And "right . confronted him," Amdt. 6, most naturally read reference common-law confrontation, those exceptions established See Mattox States, 156 237, 243. 42-56. (b) This Court's decisions generally remained faithful original meaning. See, e. g., Mattox, supra. 57-59. (c) However, same cannot said rationales more recent decisions. supra, Roberts departs from principles admits consisting testimony upon mere finding. 60-61. (d) commands assessed particular manner: testing crucible allows jury hear evidence, untested adversary process, based judicial determination reliability, thus replacing constitutionally prescribed method assessing wholly foreign one. 61-62. (e) Roberts' framework unpredictable. Whether deemed depends factors judge considers how much weight accords each them. unpardonable vice its demonstrated capacity admit core plainly meant exclude. 62-65. (f) instant case self-contained demonstration unpredictable inconsistent application. It also reveals failure interpret Constitution way secures intended constraint discretion. prescribes procedure determining trials, Court, no less than courts, lacks authority replace one devising. 65-68. 147 Wash. 2d 424, 54 P. 3d 656, reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C. filed concurring judgment, O'CONNOR, joined, post, p. 69. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. 2 Jeffrey L. Fisher, appointment 540 807, cause petitioner. With him briefs Bruce E. H. Johnson. 3 Steven Sherman respondent. brief John Michael Jones. 4 Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben States amicus curiae urging affirmance. Olson, Acting Assistant Attorney Wray, Sri Srinivasan, Joel M. Gershowitz.* 5 JUSTICE SCALIA Court. 6 Crawford stabbed man allegedly rape wife, Sylvia. At trial, played tape-recorded describing stabbing, even though Washington conviction after reliable. question presented complied Amendment's guarantee that, "[i]n all prosecutions, accused shall enjoy 7 * On August 5, 1999, Kenneth Lee apartment. Police arrested later night. After giving Miranda warnings, detectives interrogated them twice. eventually confessed gone search upset over earlier incident her. found apartment, fight ensued torso hand cut. 8 gave following account fight: 9 "Q. Okay. Did you ever see anything [Lee's] hands? 10 "A. I think so, but I'm positive. 11 Okay, what do mean that? 12 could swore seen goin' somethin' before, everything happened. He like reachin', fiddlin' around down here stuff just don't know, think, possibility, pulled out grabbed that's got cut I, my mind goes blank things happen. mean, just, remember wrong, doesn't, make sense me later." App. 155 (punctuation added). 13 corroborated story about events leading up fight, her itself arguably different — respect him: 14 Kenny back assault? 15 (pausing) know reached into pocket what. 16 stabbed? 17 saw coming up. lifted chest open, might [have] went go strike something then (inaudible). 18 you, gotta speak 19 head maybe Michael's put hands took step proceeded stab explain open arms fell we ran (describing subject holding palms toward assailant). 20 he's standing there hands, you're talking Kenny, correct? 21 Yeah, after, fact, yes. 22 point? um (no)." 137 23 charged claimed privilege, bars spouse testifying without other spouse's consent. Rev. Code § 5.60.060(1) (1994). In Washington, privilege extend out-of-court admissible under exception, Burden, 120 371, 377, 841 758, 761 (1992), Noting she led Lee's apartment facilitated assault, invoked exception penal interest, Rule Evid. 804(b)(3) (2003). 24 countered notwithstanding, federal 6. According our description 56 (1980), reliability.'" To meet test, must bear Ibid. ground, offering several reasons why trustworthy: shifting blame rather corroborating husband's acted self-defense "justified reprisal"; direct knowledge eyewitness; events; being questioned "neutral" officer. 76-77. prosecution tape relied closing, arguing "damning evidence" "completely refutes [petitioner's] claim self-defense." Tr. 468 (Oct. 21, 1999). convicted assault. 25 Appeals reversed. applied nine-factor determine bore particularized trustworthiness, noted not: contradicted previously given; response specific questions; point shut eyes stabbing. considered rejected argument coincided such degree "interlocked." determined although agreed they differed issue crucial claim: "[Petitioner's] version asserts may him; has grabbing been stabbed." 32. 26 reinstated unanimously concluding firmly trustworthiness: "`[W]hen codefendant's confession virtually [to, interlocks with,] defendant, reliable.'" 437, 663 (2002) (quoting Rice, 549, 570, 844 416, 427 (1993)). explained: 27 "Although concluded contradictory, closer inspection overlap. 28 "[B]oth Crawfords' possibly weapon, equally unsure event taken place. They received hand, when, ever, possessed weapon. 29 "[N]either nor clearly stated simply defending himself. omission makes reliable." 2d, 438-439, 3d, 664 (internal quotation marks omitted).1 30 We granted certiorari Clause. 539 914 II 31 provides held bedrock procedural applies prosecutions. Pointer Texas, 380 400, 406 (1965). As above, says long adequate indicia S., argues strays meaning urges us reconsider it. 32 Constitution's case. One plausibly "witnesses against" actually cf. Woodsides State, Miss. 655, 664-665 (1837), whose offered J. Wigmore, Evidence 1397, 104 (2d ed. 1923) (hereinafter Wigmore), in-between, infra, 52-53. therefore turn background understand 33 confront one's accusers concept dates Roman times. Coy Iowa, 487 1012, 1015 (1988); Herrmann & Speer, Facing Accuser: Ancient Medieval Precursors Clause, 34 Va. Int'l 481 founding generation's immediate source concept, however, law. continental civil regard manner give trials. tradition live adversarial testing, while condones examination private officers. W. Blackstone, Commentaries Laws England 373-374 (1768). Nonetheless, times adopted elements practice. Justices peace officials examined suspects trial. These sometimes lieu testimony, practice "occasioned frequent prisoner `accusers,' him, brought face face." Stephen, History Criminal Law 326 (1883). some cases, these refused. Holdsworth, 216-217, 228 (3d 1944); Raleigh's Case, How. St. 1, 15-16, (1603); Throckmorton's 869, 875-876 (1554); Lilburn's 1315, 1318-1322, 1329 (Star Chamber 1637). 35 Pretrial became routine statutes passed reign Queen Mary 16th century, Phil. M., c. (1554), id., (1555). Marian bail committal required justices examine felony certify results court. doubtful purpose produce Langbein, Prosecuting Crime Renaissance 21-34 (1974). Whatever purpose, came used Hale, Pleas Crown 284 (1736), resulting adoption procedure. 528-530. notorious instances occurred great political trials 17th centuries. 1603 Sir Walter Raleigh treason. Lord Cobham, alleged accomplice, implicated Privy Council letter. jury. Cobham lied save himself: "Cobham absolutely King's mercy; excuse avail accusing hope favour." D. Jardine, Trials 435 (1832). Suspecting recant, demanded judges call appear, "[t]he Proof Common jury: let here, Call accuser ." Tr., 15-16. refused, 24, and, despite protestations "by Spanish Inquisition," 15, convicted, sentenced death. 37 lamented "`the justice never degraded injured condemnation Raleigh.'" 520. Through series statutory reforms, developed confrontation limited abuses. For example, treason "face face" arraignment. Car. 2, (1661); 306. Courts, meanwhile, relatively strict rules unavailability, demonstrably unable person. Morley's 769, 770-771 (H. 1666); 284; 358. Several suspect's himself, others implicated. Hawkins, Crown, ch. 46, 3, pp. 603-604 (T. Leach 6th 1787); 585, n. (k); G. Gilbert, 216 (C. Lofft 1791); Tong's Kel. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (treason). But King Westbeer, 12, 168 108, 109 (1739). 38 recurring admissibility pretrial depended cross-examine 1696, Bench answered affirmative, widely reported misdemeanor libel Paine, Mod. 163, 87 584. ruled dead, "the present [it was] mayor lost benefit cross-examination." 165, Rep., 585. debated length infamous proceedings Fenwick bill attainder. Fenwick's counsel objected spirited away, ground cross-examine. 537, 591-592 1696) (Powys) ("[T]hat offer Mr. Goodman hath sworn ; sir F. privy, given person; conceive ."); 592 (Shower) ("[N]o deposition person can read, beyond sea, party privy examination, cross-examined [O]ur constitution is, accuser"). nonetheless closely divided vote opined apply parliamentary attainder speaker normally inadmissible. (Williamson); 604-605 (Chancellor Exchequer); 607; Wigmore 1364, 22-23, 54. condemned, "must burned general consciousness vital importance rule securing 22; Carmell 529 513, 526-530 (2000). 39 Paine settled requiring cross-examination matter law, doubts cases. identify circumstances admissible, (1555), inferred required. 109; compare 596 (Sloane), 602 (Musgrave). Many expressed view acknowledged derogation Eriswell, T. R. 707, 710, 100 815, 817 (K. B. 1790) (Grose, J.) (dicta); 722-723, 823-824 (Kenyon, (same); Evidence, 215 (admissible Force `of Statute'"), 65. Nevertheless, 1791 (the year ratified), courts applying Dingler, 561, 562-563, 383, 383-384 (1791); Woodcock, 500, 502-504, 352, 353 (1789); Radbourne, 457, 459-461, 330, 331-332 (1787); 23. Early 19th-century treatises confirm requirement. Starkie, 95 (1826); 484-492; Peake, 63-64 1808). When Parliament amended 1848 requirement explicit, Vict., 42, change merely "introduced terms" already afforded equitable construction law." Beeston, Eq. 527, (Ct. Crim. 1854) (Jervis, J.).2 B 40 Controversial practices Colonies. 18th Virginia protested Governor having "privately issued commissions men parte," complaining defend himself defamers." A Memorial Concerning Maladministrations His Excellency Francis Nicholson, reprinted Historical Documents 253, 257 (D. Douglas 1955). decade Revolution, jurisdiction Stamp Act offenses admiralty followed procedures routinely examination. Geo. 57 (1765); Pollitt, Right Confrontation: Its Modern Dress, Pub. 381, 396-397 (1959). Colonial representatives subverted their rights extending ancient limits." Resolutions Congress 8th 19, 1765), Sources Our Liberties 270, 271 (R. Perry Cooper eds. 1959). Adams, merchant high-profile argued: "Examinations Interrogatories, Civil Law. Interrogatories unknown Law, Englishmen Lawyers aversion Abhorrence them." Draft Argument Sewall Hancock 1768-Mar. 1769), Legal Papers Adams 194, 207 (L. Wroth Zobel 1965). 41 declarations Revolution guaranteed Declaration Rights (1776); Pennsylvania IX Delaware Maryland XIX North Carolina VII Vermont Ch. X (1777); Massachusetts XII (1780); New Hampshire Bill XV (1783), Schwartz, Rights: Documentary 235, 265, 278, 282, 287, 323, 342, 377 (1971). proposed Federal Constitution, not. ratifying convention, Abraham Holmes precisely lead practices: "The altogether indetermined; [the defendant] witnesses, advantage cross-examination, yet told. [W]e find powers enabling institute judicatories little inauspicious certain tribunal Spain, Inquisition." Debates 110-111 (J. Elliot 1863). Similarly, prominent Antifederalist writing pseudonym Farmer criticized "written objecting vicinage right: "Nothing essential cross examining [of] triers facts question. [W]ritten [is] almost useless; frequently parte, very seldom leads proper discovery truth." Lee, Letter IV 1787), 469, 473. First responded including proposal Amendment. 42 shed light understanding right. Webb, N. 103 (Super. 1794) (per curiam), decided three years Amendment, depositions presence. Rejecting broader reading authorities, held: "[I]t founded natural justice, prejudiced liberty examine." 104. 43 Campbell, 124 (App. 1844), South Carolina's highest excluded coroner absence "[I]f decide dissenting voice. For, notwithstanding death witness, whatever respectability taking depositions, solemnity occasion therefore, utterly incompetent." 125. "indispensable conditions" implicitly "prosecutions carried accused, subjected personal examination." 44 effect. Some far hold inadmissible previous Finn Commonwealth, 701, 708 (1827); Atkins, Tenn. 229 1807) curiam). Most view, reaffirming Macomb, Cas. 1132, 1133 (No. 15,702) (CC Ill. 1851); Houser, Mo. 431, 435-436 (1858); Kendrick 479, 485-488 (1850); Bostick 344, 345-346 (1842); Commonwealth Richards, Mass. 434, 437 (1837); Hill, 607, 608-610 1835); Johnston 58, 59 (Err. 1821). Nineteenth-century rule. Bishop, Procedure 1093, 689 1872); Cooley, Constitutional Limitations *318. III 45 inferences 46 deployed Raleigh's; invited; law's assertion prohibit; founding-era rhetoric decried. interpreted focus mind. 47 Accordingly, once again reject force in-court application introduced being." 101; accord, Dutton Evans, 400 74, 94 (1970) (Harlan, result). Leaving regulation render powerless prevent flagrant inquisitorial practices. was, all, perfectly free Cobham's 48 suggests implicates concerns. An off-hand, overheard remark unreliable good candidate exclusion rules, resemblance abuses targeted. modern certainly condoned 49 reflects focus. "witnesses" words, "bear testimony." Webster, American Dictionary Language (1828). "Testimony," turn, typically "[a] solemn declaration affirmation establishing proving fact." formal government casual acquaintance text, underlying especially acute concern type statement. 50 Various formulations class "testimonial" exist: "ex functional equivalent material affidavits, custodial examinations, cross-examine, similar declarants reasonably expect prosecutorially," Brief 23; "extrajudicial contained formalized materials, confessions," White Illinois, 502 346, 365 (1992) (THOMAS, joined part judgment); "statements objective believe available trial," National Association Defense et al. Amici Curiae 3. share nucleus define coverage various levels abstraction Regardless precise articulation, qualify any definition preliminary hearing. 51 Statements course narrow standard. striking England. oath dispositive. unsworn, Trials, 430, thought paradigmatic violation, see, L., 130. statutes, oath, 52. Yet Hawkins caution unsworn confessions anyone confessor. 45.3 52 interrogators magistrates picture either. conducting office today, essentially investigative prosecutorial function. England, 221; Renaissance, 34-45. professional until 19th 194-200, surprising performed functions now associated primarily police. involvement production presents risk, peace. 53 sum, solely concerned object, class.4 record second proposition: testify, suggest open-ended courts. Rather, 243 (1895); Mo., 433-435. above reveal, conditioned absent unavailability incorporates limitations. numerous country.5 55 sources say sufficient, necessary, condition statements. dispositive, ways establish reliability. deny, CHIEF notes, "[t]here always exclusion" evidence. Post, 73. become well 1791. Amicus 13, 5. scant case.6 covered nature business records furtherance conspiracy. infer testimony. Cf. Lilly Virginia, 527 116, 134 (1999) (plurality opinion) ("[A]ccomplices' inculpate rule").7 largely consistent decision, involved deceased 237 (1895). allowing admitted, fact had, first witness: substance protection preserved seeing face, subjecting ordeal This, says, deprived 244. conform Mattox's hearing Mancusi Stubbs, 408 204, 213-216 (1972); California Green, 399 149, 165-168 (1970); 406-408; Kirby 174 47, 55-61 (1899). Even opportunity, witness. Barber Page, 390 719, 722-725 (1968); Motes 178 458, 470-471 (1900). similarly accomplice Russell, 392 293, 294-295 (1968) curiam); Bruton 391 123, 126-128 Alabama, 415, 418-420 contrast, testimonial. 87-89 opinion). 58 outcomes, hew traditional line. 67-70, Bourjaily 483 171, 181-184 (1987), unwittingly Bureau Investigation informant indispensable requirement.8 476 530 (1986), relies, contrary. There, attempt confession. "interlocked" defendant's. dealt rejecting premise, "when discrepancies between insignificant, admitted." 545. Respondent logical inference possible inference, inevitable one, draw here. If authoritatively announce jurisprudence interlocking confessions, done oblique manner. precedent addressed entirely limiting instruction cured prejudice codefendants defendant's joint Parker Randolph, 442 62, 69-76 (1979) opinion), abrogated Cruz York, 186 (1987). 60 Framers' understanding: Testimonial declarant unavailable, cross-examine.9 V 61 Although rationales. conditions identified respects. too broad: analysis consists often close scrutiny removed concerns time, narrow: consist finding malleable standard fails protect violations. 62 Members academics suggested revise doctrine reflect accurately Lilly, 140-143 (BREYER, concurring); White, 366 A. Amar, 125-131 (1997); Friedman, Search Basic Principles, 86 1011 (1998). proposals: statements, leaving remainder eliminating over-breadth referred above. impose absolute testimonial, excessive narrowness 63 352-353. casts doubt holding, need definitively survives decision Crawford's definition. does, implicate proposal. 64 Where involved, leave vagaries amorphous notions "reliability." Certainly none discussed acknowledges Admitting fundamentally odds sure, ultimate goal ensure substantive guarantee. commands, reliable, desirability (a dissent), best determined. Commentaries, 373 ("This conducive clearing truth"); Analysis 258 (1713) (adversarial "beats bolts Truth better"). 65 replaces respect, surrogate means forfeiture wrongdoing (which accept) extinguishes claims grounds; purport alternative Reynolds 98 145, 158-159 (1879). 66 sorts determinations authorizes. repeated many arguments invoke today: self-inculpatory, heat passion, 14, "extracted [him] hopes promise Pardon," 29. plausible objection properly weigh sentencing problem refused allow court, try expose accusation lie. 67 Dispensing obviously akin dispensing guilty. prescribes. 68 legacy vindicates wisdom exception. provide meaningful 69 Reliability amorphous, subjective, concept. There countless bearing reliable; balancing below representative. People Farrell, 401, 406-407 (Colo. 2001) (eight-factor test). heavily wind attaching significance opposite facts. Colorado inculpation "detailed," 407, Fourth Circuit portion implicating another "fleeting," Photogrammetric Data Servs., Inc., 259 229, 245 (2001). custody crime (thus making interest), Nowlin 327, 335-338, 579 367, 371-372 (2003), Wisconsin suspect, Bintz, 2002 WI ¶ Wis. 177, 650 913, 13. Finally, "immediately after" elapsed, Stevens People, 305, 316 70 unpredictability, Despite plurality's speculation 137, "highly unlikely" survive continue 245-246; Stevens, 314-318; Taylor 151, 166-168 (Ky. 2001); 2001-P-0060, WL 31895118, ¶¶ 34-37, *6 (Ohio App., Dec. 31, 2002); 7-14, 183-188, 916-918; Lawrence, 155, 160-161 Jones, 171 Ore. 375, 387-391, 616, 623-625 (2000); Marshall, 136 742, 747-748, 737 1005, 1009 Schutte, 240 Mich. 713, 718-721, 613 370, 376-377 Thomas, 313 998, 1005-1007, 730 618, 625-626 Nowlin, (witness related crime); 309 423, 431-432, 721 1225, 1230 (same). study appellate one-third time. Kirst, Appellate Answers Questions Syracuse 87, 105 Courts Aguilar, 295 1018, 1021-1023 (CA9 2002) (plea allocution showing existence conspiracy); Centracchio, 265 518, 527-530 (CA7 Dolah, 98, 104-105 (CA2 Petrillo, 119, 122-123 2000) Moskowitz, 268-269 curiam) Gallego, 191 156, 1999) Papajohn, 212 1112, 1118-1120 (CA8 (grand testimony); Fed. Appx. 277, 279 (CA4 15-22, 188-191, 918-920 (prior McNeill, 140 450, 457-460, 537 523-524 (2000) 71 add insult injury, earlier, pending charges theory interest 371-372. Other rely proceedings. allocution); 1120 testimony). inculpating setting antidote problem, trigger urgent. enough usual safeguards process attend statement, single safeguard missing demands. C 72 failings full display below. custody, herself potential suspect Indeed, told released "depend[ed] investigation continues." 81. questions detectives, husband least undermined claim. this, listing reversing, listed exclusively character disregarded every factor lower considered. 73 Each assumptions undermined. eyewitness events. "shut [her] didn't really watch" "in shock." 134. buttressed claiming "being enforcement, thus, [questioner] neutral someone inclined advance interests shade truth unfavorably defendant." 77. astounded learn elicited court's assessment officer's motives accurate, nothing perception situation. Only reveal that. 74 dispositive hard accept. Petitioner's lingering recollection: [B]ut positive." 155. truly inscrutable, since key timing detail assumed asked: assault?" Moreover, specifically stabbed, asked 75 prosecutor called knowing Far obviating "interlocking" ambiguity imperative tested tease truth. 76 readily concede reweighing "reliability factors" short. rare result improbable fundamental reverse perpetuate, avoid, condemns. we, lack 77 acting utmost faith Framers, content indulge assumption. knew judges, officers, trusted people; likes dread Jeffreys distant memory. loath discretion hands. Const., (criminal trial); (civil Ring Arizona, 536 584, 611-612 (SCALIA, concurring). By categorical tests, violence design. Vague standards manipulable, small run-of-the-mill prosecutions eye politically impartiality judiciary clear. difficult imagine providing circumstances. 78 79 nontestimonial design afford flexibility development approach exempted altogether. required: day effort spell comprehensive "testimonial."10 else term covers, minimum hearing, grand jury, former trial; interrogations. closest kinship directed. 80 petitioner, violation decline mine prescribes: 81 judgment reversed, remanded further opinion. 82 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal David Porter, Shapiro; Clark Richard Friedman Moran. trustworthiness unnecessary waived invoking reasoned "forcing choose confronting untenable Hobson's choice." 432, 660. challenged Appeals' conclusion (not Court) occurred, harmless. express matters coroner, authorized statutes. (requirement "never conceded England"); 64, n(m) 1808) "expressly case"); 436 (1858) ("there few questioned, [England], ablest writers law"); 124, 130 1844) (point "has adjudged, cases"). rule, flatly special status 436; 130; refute JUSTICE's assertion,post, (opinion judgment), if, claims, moot point, reasonable inference. implausible provision concededly condemned affidavit OK. (The self-regulating jurors disbelieve it, 69-70, belied testimony.) Any phenomenon exist (here, allegedly, testimony) involves estimation calls "proxy," hardly reason accurate possible. mistakenly asserts, originally been. "interrogation" colloquial, technical legal, sense. CfRhode Island Innis, 446 291, 300-301 (1980). Just definitions exist, "interrogation," select among knowingly structured questioning, qualifies conceivable treatment framing,post, 72-73, examples cites relate explained, extent derogated 46-47. statutory-derogation justice-of-the-peace explicitly (1789), (1791), implication (1787). None JUSTICE'S citations proves otherwise. 108 (1739), half century directly contrary holdings Woodcock Dingler. Hale's treatise older still, 585-586 (1736); espoused views. timely 815 1790), substantial support. Eriswell suit inhabitants town charge care insane pauper. 707-708, 815-816. relevant discuss dicta. them, Buller, defended pauper's residence basis purportedly admissible. 713-714, 819. quick out, thing. (m) ("Mr. Buller Lev. 180, 55; kind appears books"); 487-488, (1826) ("Buller, refers Radbourne's .; prisoner, arise" (citation omitted)). Two Grose, Kenyon, Buller's distinguishing context tenor remarks accuracy premise independent consideration, R., J.); J.). reporter notes footnote assumption erroneous. (c), 817, (c). Notably, position pauper resoundingly Ferry Frystone, East 54, 55, 102 289 1801) ("The clear abandoned argument"), suggesting views mainstream framing. short, shows unsettled More importantly, doubt, state-court abundantly incorporated supposedly carved 49-50; (coroner statements). 1696. 585 B.). deviation dying declarations. disputed. See,e. 243-244 Reason, 24-38 1722); (1832); Limitations, *318; 211 Heller, (1951) (asserting recognized law). are. 501-504, 353-354; 24-38; 64; 460-462, 332-333. accepted grounds, sui generis. agree "[t]hat undermine [hearsay] exceptions."Post, 74. Involvement unique abuse borne throughout keenly familiar. consideration evaporate happens broad, justifiable tension proffered isWhite 346 inter alia, child investigating officer spontaneous 349-351. questionable 1791; existed "immediat[ely] hurt received, declarant] devise contrive thing advantage." Thompson Trevanion, Skin. 402, 90 179 1693). imposed types issue. 348-349. address unavailable. "[took] exceptions." 351, 4. complains distinction" draw, citing particularMattox (1895), (1899), Burr, 187 14,694) (Marshall, 71-72. contradicts way. depending 242-244; Kirby, 55-61. extrapolate criterion doing now. disagree Chief Justice Marshall passing governing "principle important" "inroad[s]" "rule rejects Cas., 193. Nothing concedes term. (aside minor, arguable 8), else, empirically explanation reached. reiterate places constraints 162 (1970). irrelevant "`cannot replicated, testifies court.'" Inadi, 475 387, 395 (1986)). purposes asserted. Tennessee Street, 471 409, 414 (1985).) acknowledge objection,post, 75-76, refusal articulate will interim uncertainty. worse quo. 63-67, cited. difference inherently, permanently, 83 whom O'CONNOR joins, judgment. dissent overrule new interpretation backed sufficiently persuasive reasoning long-established precedent. mantle uncertainty future necessary 85 distinction claim, better current doctrine. consistent, unlike based.1 Brasier, 199, 200, 202 1779); Origins Adversary Trial 235-242 (2003); 152 1769).2 accusatory likely disapproved necessarily resembled affidavits reasons, oath.3 503, (1789) (noting oath). Without usually get Thus, mainly follow category (1828) (defining "Testimony" fact. Such proceedings, verbal written, oath" (emphasis added)). tell, treated differently seems classification somewhat arbitrary, proxy liberally today.4 draws preferable Starting Marshall's 1807, ratification 187, 193 1807), continuing late 54-57 through 352-353 matter, neither am aware. value trading imprecise approximation date. 88 convinced categorically requires Clauses, vintage regularity recently uniform; stringent prohibiting ante, (citing curiam)). 89 Nor framing Generally proposition universal. (affirming testify); (1739) affidavit); (1736) "accusers witnesses" "dead able travel"). end 1700's, 26-27, coroners statute 1800's, ibid.; 1374, 59. indication otherwise 715-719 (Buller, J.), 720 (Ashhurst, 819-822 (concluding condition). Dying example. 22-23 1722). Between 1700 1800 regarding still developed. exclusion, wanted eliminate ones. trace Empire; quite conclude excludes large odd indeed created cut-and-dried fully settled. 91 denigrate suggests. Clause: "I principle preservation concerned. none, undermining which, life, property, endangered. incumbent watchful inroad important." Yet, absolute, acknowledging exclusionary component "inroad" introduced. ibid. 92 Exceptions derived experience due made. recognized, co-conspirator "cannot court." (1986). Because partners illegal enterprise, unlikely false "actually furthers `Confrontation mission' `advance truth-determining trials.'" 396 415 (1985) (some internal Similar justify introduction declarations, 356, procuring medical services, ibid., 61, exceptions. 93 tool flesh truth, empty Kentucky Stincer, 482 730, (1987) protected `functional' designed promote truth-finding trial"); Craig, 497 836, 845 (1990) central rigorous proceeding trier fact"). "[I]n instance [cross-examination may] superfluous; clear, instance, risk inaccuracy untrustworthiness, work supererogation." 1420, 251. ago, declares public sacrificed order incidental accused." 243; Salinger 272 542, 548 (1926). creating immutable adds trial's function ignores longstanding guidance. choosing path overrules quarter ago. Stare decisis inexorable command area Payne Tennessee, 501 808, 828 (1991), large, "is preferred promotes evenhanded, predictable, legal principles, fosters reliance decisions, contributes actual perceived integrity process," 827. appraisal, "right" should surely weighed balance. Though vested unresolved everyday country sort caution. grandly "[w]e `testimonial,'" 68. thousands prosecutors tens answers kinds "testimony" lists, now, months Rules country, parties left dark credit, exceptions, official records. 56. require additional apparent gain truth-seeking process. Likewise credit implicit recognition mistaken guess wrong scope harmless-error analysis. 1. 96 palliatives course. reaches follows inexorably progeny overruling line Idaho Wright, 805, 820-824 (1990), truthfulness 66, decisive "interlocking statements." No re-weighing factors," hypothesized 67, citation suffice. stated, take scholars develop attendant heard Gallanis, Rise Iowa 499, 534-535 (1999); Mosteller, Remaking Hearsay Doctrine Challenge Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions, 1993 691, 738-746. support conviction; rather, corroborate 19-20, Chadbourn rev. 1974) Wigmore) 1600's 1700's non-testimonial permissible 238-239 predominance society, juries skeptical Landsman, Contentious Spirit: Eighteenth Century Cornell 497, 506 17th-century sentiments); Lawyers, Chi. 263, 291-293 (1978). lesser Gilbert's 1769: "Hearsay Person Testify Oath, spake Oath; Man Thing believed Justice; Credit Attestation rise higher Fountain whence flows, Speech Oath bare speaking, Value Justice, Things Solemnities Confessions confessor obvious Principles Policy, Humanity'" prohibited attesting 1791). Still, points seeante, 52, treason, insufficient confessor, 4, 604, 1787). indicates raise 116 contend My reach ones,

Category: 0