Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Don't Blame Crawford or Bryant: The Confrontation Clause Mess is All Davis' Fault

View through CrossRef
In Michigan v. Bryant, a dying victim lying in a parking lot provided responding officers with the identity of the man who shot him. In determining whether the subsequent use of the deceased declarant’s statement at trial violated the Confrontation Clause, the Bryant Court applied the testimonial versus nontestimonial analysis established in the Court’s previous decision, Crawford v. Washington. Holding that testimonial hearsay covered statements involving past events, while nontestimonial statements were directed at an “ongoing emergency,” the Bryant Court applied a multi-factor, totality of the circumstances analysis and found that the deceased declarant’s identification had been directed at the ongoing emergency. As such, the hearsay statement was nontestimonial and, accordingly, outside the protection of the Confrontation Clause. Bryant, was roundly (and deservedly) criticized by all commentators, who unanimously accused the Court of making a shambles of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. To an extent, Crawford also shared the commentator’s blame. But for the authors of this article, it is the Court’s Confrontation Clause analysis in Davis v. Washington, a case involving a 911 call, which is truly to blame for the debacle that is Bryant; for Davis carelessly equated “nontestimonial” with a decontextualized, commonplace notion of an “ongoing emergency.” That was the mistake that led to Bryant. As this article will demonstrate, the issue for purposes of Confrontation Clause analysis in cases like Davis and Bryant is not whether or not there exists an ongoing emergency in some general sense; but rather whose emergency it is. If the emergency is the government’s, then any statements made by citizens to help the government address that emergency are testimonial. If the emergency is one in which a citizen is seeking the government’s help (regardless of whether or not it’s also the government’s emergency), any statements by the citizen are nontestimonial.
Title: Don't Blame Crawford or Bryant: The Confrontation Clause Mess is All Davis' Fault
Description:
In Michigan v.
Bryant, a dying victim lying in a parking lot provided responding officers with the identity of the man who shot him.
In determining whether the subsequent use of the deceased declarant’s statement at trial violated the Confrontation Clause, the Bryant Court applied the testimonial versus nontestimonial analysis established in the Court’s previous decision, Crawford v.
Washington.
Holding that testimonial hearsay covered statements involving past events, while nontestimonial statements were directed at an “ongoing emergency,” the Bryant Court applied a multi-factor, totality of the circumstances analysis and found that the deceased declarant’s identification had been directed at the ongoing emergency.
As such, the hearsay statement was nontestimonial and, accordingly, outside the protection of the Confrontation Clause.
Bryant, was roundly (and deservedly) criticized by all commentators, who unanimously accused the Court of making a shambles of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence.
To an extent, Crawford also shared the commentator’s blame.
But for the authors of this article, it is the Court’s Confrontation Clause analysis in Davis v.
Washington, a case involving a 911 call, which is truly to blame for the debacle that is Bryant; for Davis carelessly equated “nontestimonial” with a decontextualized, commonplace notion of an “ongoing emergency.
” That was the mistake that led to Bryant.
As this article will demonstrate, the issue for purposes of Confrontation Clause analysis in cases like Davis and Bryant is not whether or not there exists an ongoing emergency in some general sense; but rather whose emergency it is.
If the emergency is the government’s, then any statements made by citizens to help the government address that emergency are testimonial.
If the emergency is one in which a citizen is seeking the government’s help (regardless of whether or not it’s also the government’s emergency), any statements by the citizen are nontestimonial.

Related Results

Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Photo ID 123697425 © Alexandersikov | Dreamstime.com Abstract Originalism is an increasingly prevalent method for interpreting provisions of the US Constitution. It requires strict...
Integration Techniques of Fault Detection and Isolation Using Interval Observers
Integration Techniques of Fault Detection and Isolation Using Interval Observers
An interval observer has been illustrated to be a suitable approach to detect and isolate faults affecting complex dynamical industrial systems. Concerning fault detection, interv...
“Clitic climbing” in Hittite
“Clitic climbing” in Hittite
Abstract Cross-linguistically, clitic climbing occurs when clitics that belong syntactically and semantically to the subordinate clause (most commonly non-finite, rarely finite...
SUBORDINATE CLAUSES IN ADULTERY NOVEL
SUBORDINATE CLAUSES IN ADULTERY NOVEL
A subordinate clause (dependent clause) is a clause that cannot stand alone as a complete sentence because it does not express a complete thought. It explains and gives more inform...
Decomposition and Evolution of Intracontinental Strike‐Slip Faults in Eastern Tibetan Plateau
Decomposition and Evolution of Intracontinental Strike‐Slip Faults in Eastern Tibetan Plateau
Abstract:Little attention had been paid to the intracontinental strike‐slip faults of the Tibetan Plateau. Since the discovery of the Longriba fault using re‐measured GPS data in 2...
Chapter 4: Displacement on the southern San Andreas fault
Chapter 4: Displacement on the southern San Andreas fault
The pre-Quaternary geology of the southern Chocolate and Cargo Muchacho mountains correlates with that exposed in San Gorgonio Pass between the Mission Creek and Banning branches o...

Back to Top