We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
TAKING CONFRONTATION SERIOUSLY: DOES CRAWFORD MEAN THAT CONFESSIONS MUST BE CROSS-EXAMINED?
- Authors
Summers, Mark A.
- Abstract
This article focuses on the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington to one subcategory of party admissions-defendants'confessions ?taken by police officers in the course of interrogations.? Such statements fall within Crawford's core class of testimonial statements, which must be subjected to cross-examination either at the time they are made or at trial in order to satisfy the Confrontation Clause. In some post-Crawford cases, defendants have argued that the failure to comply with Crawford should bar the prosecution from using their confessions. The lower courts have uniformly held that Crawford does not apply to a defendant's own confession because such statements are defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence as ?not hearsay,? and Crawford applies only to "testimonial hearsay."? In this article, I argue that, as a definitional matter, Crawford does apply to confessions, but that they should be exempted from Crawford's cross-examination requirement on "historical grounds."
- Subjects
UNITED States. Supreme Court; LEGAL judgments; CROSS-examination; CONFESSION (Law); POLICE questioning; DEFENDANTS; CRAWFORD v. Washington
- Publication
Albany Law Review, 2013, Vol 76, Issue 3, p1805
- ISSN
0002-4678
- Publication type
Article