We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Tales of the Dead: Why Autopsy Reports Should Be Classified as Testimonial Statements Under the Confrontation Clause.
- Authors
HIGLEY, ANDREW
- Abstract
An autopsy report can be the most relevant piece of evidence in homicide trials. Preparers of autopsy reports are no different than typical eyewitness at the scene of the crime. A pathologist's specialized knowledge sees things in the dead body that others cannot, revealing such key elements as cause and manner of death. The dead body is therefore like the victim's last dying tale, which the pathologist translates into the autopsy report. Though the United States Supreme Court has held that other forensic reports are testimonial statements under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, requiring the preparer of such reports to be available for cross-examination, the Court has been silent on autopsy reports. Federal circuit and state supreme courts are split on this issue. This Note will argue that the Court should hear the issue and hold that autopsy reports are testimonial statements because they are a part of the core class of testimonial statements and their primary purpose is to establish a fact at trial. The original pathologist who conducted the autopsy and prepared the report must testify unless a surrogate pathologist testifies from a basis independent of the conclusions contained in the report. Also, when a testifying surrogate pathologist relies on an autopsy report but the report itself is not submitted into evidence, that testimony should still be prohibited under the Confrontation Clause. Rigorous constitutional scrutiny of such reports would greatly protect the liberty of the accused.
- Subjects
UNITED States; AUTOPSY reports; LEGAL testimony; UNITED States. Constitution. 6th Amendment; CLAUSES (Law); LEGAL evidence; TRIALS (Homicide); EYEWITNESS identification; CONSTITUTIONAL law; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law); LAW
- Publication
New England Law Review, 2013, Vol 48, Issue 1, p171
- ISSN
0028-4823
- Publication type
Article