.
Where The Evidence Used Against A Person In Court
Is Not Called "Testimony,"
There Is NO RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINATION.
Davis v. Washington, June, 2006
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-5224.pdf
The 6th Amendment contains the confrontation clause. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." For hundreds of years, the right to confront witnesses was required in cases where an accuser or witness made statements describing past events to police or officials. Specific exceptions were occasionally made where the accuser became unavailable.
This case involved a new situation. Here, a statement was made to the police through a 911 call. The call took place while an assault was in progress. The accuser, who made the 911 call, did not show up in court to testify as a witness. The court did not discuss the reason for her failure to appear. There was no claim that she was unavailable. Apparently, she could have appeared to give the defendant his right to confront witnesses, but chose to stay away. The defendant was convicted.
The Supreme Court said that the 911 call was admissible into court even though there was no opportunity to confront the witness and no specific exception was made to demonstrate that the witness was not required. The court reasoned that the 911 call was just a call for help, not testimony.
The Supreme Court held that a person who is charged with a crime based on a call for help during the crime does not have the right to confront the witness.
When you read this case, note that the Supreme Court consolidated two cases. This synopsis covered the the Davis case, not the Hammon case, which was more routine.
BACK TO MAIN SUPREME COURT BLOGGER PAGE ...
http://supremecourtblogger.blogspot.com/
