Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2163105
 
 

Footnotes (271)



 


 



Confronting Crawford v. Washington in the Lower Courts


Dylan O. Keenan


Yale University - Law School

February 1, 2012

Yale Law Journal, Vol. 122, 2012

Abstract:     
Crawford v. Washington is arguably the most significant criminal procedure decision of the last decade. Critics have argued that the Crawford line is a doctrinal muddle that has led to arbitrary and unpredictable results in the lower courts. I respond to this critique with empirical evidence by presenting results from the first statistical analysis of post-Crawford Confrontation Clause cases. The results show that lower courts have emphasized two factors — the presence of a state actor and the presence of an injured party — to evaluate whether a statement is testimonial under Crawford. I then argue that these results are not ambiguous or contradictory but consistent with Crawford’s reasoning and the underlying purposes of the Confrontation Clause.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 55

Keywords: confrontation clause, Crawford v. Washington, empirical, content analysis, criminal procedure, constituitonal law, criminal law, sixth amendment, regression analysis

JEL Classification: K14, K19, K42

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: October 18, 2012 ; Last revised: December 23, 2012

Suggested Citation

Keenan, Dylan O., Confronting Crawford v. Washington in the Lower Courts (February 1, 2012). Yale Law Journal, Vol. 122, 2012. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2163105

Contact Information

Dylan O. Keenan (Contact Author)
Yale University - Law School ( email )
P.O. Box 208215
New Haven, CT 06520-8215
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 469
Downloads: 65
Download Rank: 210,043
Footnotes:  271

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.313 seconds