Hearsay and the Confrontation Clause

 

The relationship between hearsay, the right to face one’s accuser, and the burden of proof is complex and has evolved through various Supreme Court decisions. Here’s a detailed explanation:

Hearsay and the Confrontation Clause

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees that a defendant has the right to confront the witnesses against them. This right is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial by allowing the defendant to cross-examine witnesses and challenge their testimony[1][3][4].

Evolution of the Confrontation Clause

Originally, the Supreme Court held that if a hearsay statement fell into a traditional hearsay exception, it was admissible. However, in Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Court radically changed this approach, ruling that the right of confrontation overrides hearsay exceptions. The Court held that “testimonial” statements (those that are factual and accusatory or important in making out the case against the accused) cannot be used against a defendant unless the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant[1][4].

Defining Testimonial Statements

Subsequent cases have refined what constitutes a “testimonial” statement:

– Davis v. Washington (2006): The Court held that the intent of the declarant matters. A call for help (e.g., a 911 call) is not testimonial, but an accusation to aid in prosecution is[1][4].
– Michigan v. Bryant (2011): The Court further clarified that the context of the statement also matters. A statement made during an ongoing emergency is not testimonial, but one made after the emergency has passed and the investigation has begun is[1][4].
– Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009): The Court ruled that whether the hearsay statement goes to prove the truth of a material issue matters. For example, a police lab report used to prove an element of the crime is testimonial, but a police report offered to impeach a witness is not[1][4].

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof in establishing that a defendant has forfeited their right to confront a witness (for example, by making the witness unavailable to testify) lies with the prosecution. The prosecution must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant secured the witness’s unavailability for the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying[4].

Exceptions to the Confrontation Clause

There are exceptions to the right to confront witnesses, including:

– Forfeiture by Wrongdoing: If the defendant makes the witness unavailable to testify for the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying, the defendant forfeits their right to confront the witness[4].
– Dying Declarations: Although not explicitly acknowledged by the Supreme Court as an exception to the Confrontation Clause, lower courts have recognized dying declarations as an exception[4].

In summary, the right to face one’s accuser is a fundamental constitutional right that has been refined through various Supreme Court decisions. The burden of proof in establishing exceptions to this right, such as forfeiture by wrongdoing, lies with the prosecution.

Sources:

– [1] law.indiana.edu
– [2] ncpro.sog.unc.edu
– [3] www.law.cornell.edu
– [4] en.wikipedia.org
– [5] repository.law.uic.edu