We defense lawyers often have what I call “Crawford Problems.” State v. Crawford is a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2009. The main holding of the court in this case is that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause does not prohibit the admission of testimonial statements of a witness who is unavailable to testify at trial, if the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
In the case, Crawford was charged with first-degree sexual assault, and the prosecution sought to introduce a statement given by the victim to a police officer as evidence at trial. The victim was unavailable to testify in person at trial due to health reasons, and Crawford argued that the admission of the statement would violate his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.
The Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause applies only to “witnesses” against the accused, and that it does not apply to out-of-court statements that are not made under oath or other circumstances that would create an “affront to the dignity of the judicial process.” The court further held that the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit the admission of testimonial statements of a witness who is unavailable to testify at trial, if the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness!