Confrontation Clause (Crawford)
Evidence · Lesson 09
Confrontation Clause (Crawford)
這一課問的是：採用庭外陳述是否違反對質權？
ActorActObjectStandardConsequence
Issue · what this lesson is really about
Does admitting an out-of-court statement violate the Confrontation Clause?
這一課問的是：採用庭外陳述是否違反對質權？
Trigger words & phrases that should flag this issue:
testimonialpolice interrogationwitness againstconfrontationcross-examine
Core Terminology · 7 must-know
Tap a card to flip and reveal the meaning.
Confrontation Clause
Tap to see meaning
6A: accused has right to confront witnesses against him.
對質權。
testimonial
Tap to see meaning
Statements made primarily to establish facts for criminal prosecution.
證言性。
Crawford
Tap to see meaning
Testimonial out-of-court statements barred unless declarant unavailable + prior cross.
Crawford 規則。
primary purpose test
Tap to see meaning
Davis: ongoing emergency vs prosecution preparation.
主要目的測試。
forfeiture by wrongdoing
Tap to see meaning
Giles: D forfeits CC if killed witness to prevent testimony.
因不法而失。
dying declaration historical
Tap to see meaning
Recognized exception.
臨終陳述歷史例外。
non-testimonial
Tap to see meaning
Excluded from Crawford's bar; remains hearsay analysis.
非證言性。
Rule Sentence · the workhorse
Under the Confrontation Clause as construed by Crawford v. Washington, testimonial out-of-court statements may not be admitted against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine; non-testimonial statements remain subject to ordinary hearsay analysis.
Sentence Anatomy · 5 roles, 5 colors
Every rule sentence breaks into five visual roles.
Actor 行為人prosecution檢方
Act 行為offering out-of-court statement against D提出對 D 不利之庭外陳述
Object 對象testimonial statement證言性陳述
Standard 法律標準Crawford barCrawford 排除
Consequence 後果excluded unless prior cross除有先前交叉否則排除
Casebook Snapshot · a real American case
Crawford v. Washington
Holding. The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. The reliability-based Roberts framework is rejected; the historical rationale of the Clause controls.
Why it matters. Crawford revolutionized confrontation analysis. "Testimonial" hearsay needs cross-examination — period.
Crawford：證言性傳聞陳述必經先前交叉方可採。
Common Mistakes · what trips students
✗ Crawford bars all hearsay。
✓ Only testimonial statements.
僅證言性。
✗ 911 calls 都是 testimonial。
✓ Davis: emergency calls often non-testimonial.
Davis：緊急電話常非證言性。
Mini IRAC · build the Application
Issue. May the prosecution introduce V's recorded statement to police, given hours after the incident in a calm interrogation, against D?
Rule. Under Crawford, testimonial out-of-court statements may not be admitted against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.
Application (model). V's recorded statement was given hours after the incident in a calm police interrogation aimed at establishing facts for prosecution. Because Crawford bars testimonial statements absent prior cross-examination and the primary purpose of a calm post-incident police interrogation is testimonial, the fact that V's statement was given for the prosecutorial purpose of establishing facts means it is testimonial.
Pick the right element for each blank:
g1.
g2.
g3.
Conclusion. Therefore, the statement is inadmissible against D unless V is unavailable and D had prior cross.
MBE Check · multiple choice
V calls 911 during an attack: "He's hitting me with a baseball bat right now!" The recording is offered against D. Confrontation Clause issue?
Practice Drill · tap to build the rule
Drop the chips here in correct order:
Tap chips to add → tap chips in the target to remove: