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

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

Open PDF in Browser 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: https://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: 594
Downloads: 75
Download Rank: 253,698
Footnotes:  271