Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1815511
 


 



Further Confusion Over Confrontation


Craig Bradley


Indiana University Maurer School of Law

2011

Trial Magazine, June 2011
Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 193

Abstract:     
This article analyzes the recent Supreme Court decision in Michigan v. Bryant. It concludes that the dissent is correct in concluding that the victim’s statement in this case was primarily for the purpose of developing a case against the defendant, not to defuse an emergency, and consequently was “testimonial” and shouldn’t have been admitted into evidence. More importantly, it argues that the Supreme Court’s “testimonial/non-testimonial” misses the point of the Sixth Amendment and should be abandoned, in favor of an approach that focuses on the defendant’s need to cross-examine.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 5

Keywords: Sixth Amendment, Confrontation Clause, Emergency Exception

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: April 21, 2011 ; Last revised: July 11, 2013

Suggested Citation

Bradley, Craig, Further Confusion Over Confrontation (2011). Trial Magazine, June 2011; Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 193. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1815511

Contact Information

Craig Bradley (Contact Author)
Indiana University Maurer School of Law ( email )
211 S. Indiana Avenue
Bloomington, IN 47405
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 478
Downloads: 68
Download Rank: 199,258

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.250 seconds