Further Confusion Over Confrontation

Craig Bradley

Indiana University Maurer School of Law


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

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

Open PDF in Browser 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: 559
Downloads: 68
Download Rank: 231,096

© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.359 seconds