Crawford v. Washington

Crawford v. Washington was a 2004 United States Supreme Court decision dealing with whether an out of court statement was admissible. The court unanimously reversed Crawford's conviction for assault and attempted murder.

It was common ground that Crawford and his wife had confronted the victim, Kenneth Lee, on an allegation that Lee had attempted to sexually assault Crawford's wife. It was also agreed that Mr. Crawford had stabbed Lee. However, Mr. Crawford claimed he had acted in self-defence when he believed Lee had picked up a weapon. Lee denied doing anything that might make Crawford believe he was trying to attack him.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Crawford were questioned by police after receiving a Miranda warning. It was agreed that Mr. Crawford said to the police that he was not sure if Mr. Lee had a weapon, but he believed at the time he did. Mrs. Crawford, being interrogated separately, at first said that she had not seen the attack, but under further questioning said that she had seen the attack and that Lee was not holding a weapon.

At trial, Mrs. Crawford could not be compelled to testify by the state as under Washington's spousal privilege law, a spouse cannot testify in court without the defendant spouse's consent (except, of course, when a spouse is a complainant). The prosecution sought to introduce Mrs. Crawford's statement to the police as evidence that Mr. Crawford had no reasonable belief that he was in danger from Mr. Lee. Although generally out-of-court statements by persons other than the accused are excluded as hearsay, the court allowed the statement on the basis that it was reliable as it was partially corroborated by Mr. Crawford's statement to police. Defence counsel objected on the grounds that he would be unable to confront (i.e. cross-examine) Mrs. Crawford on her statement without waiving spousal privilege, and that this would be a violation of the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. However, the statement was allowed into evidence, and the prosecution relied on it heavily in their closing statement. Mr. Crawford was convicted and appealed. The initial appeal court reversed the conviction on Sixth Amendment grounds, but the Washington Court of Appeal reversed again to restore the conviction.

Mr. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, reversed the Washington Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial on the grounds that the statement should have been excluded. In doing so, he reviewed the state of the law prior to the Constitution with respect to the admission of out of court statements. The framers were well aware that under the British system of justice, out of court statements used in evidence in criminal trials were often used to railroad defendants. He also reviewed the rules regarding adjudging whether an out of court statement was reliable, and noted that in the present case Mrs. Crawford had given at least two different versions of events to police, one of which was not before the jury and may have led them to believe that she had not seen the actual attack. He also noted that although she had been given her Miranda rights, the police were pressing her to implicate her husband and threatened that her release was dependent on the results of their investigation, which would have given her a reason to alter her statement. In conclusion, the "confrontation" clause in the Sixth Amendment was designed to allow a defendant just this sort of latitude in challenging a witness's version of events and denying Mr. Crawford the opportunity was clearly an error.

Chief Justice Renquist concurred in the result, but would have decided the case on narrower grounds. He would not have expanded the right of defendants to exclude out of court statements on the basis that they could not confront the witness.

External Links

Decision at Supreme Court Web Site in PDF format [1]