Further Confusion Over Confrontation
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
Date posted: April 21, 2011 ; Last revised: July 11, 2013