Citation network
Crawford Vs. Washington
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 08, 2004
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2003 Crawford V. WashingtonSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Crawford V. WashingtonSearch
-
Under Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
common-law right of confrontation, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding. See Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
Connor, J., joined. Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Crawford V. WashingtonSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-9410 Michael D. Crawford, Petitioner V. WashingtonSearch
-
s out-of-court statements admissible under a hearsay exception, see State v. BurdenSearch
-
Amdt. 6. According to our description of that right in Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
Wash. 2d 424, 437, 54 P. 3d 656, 663 (2002) (quoting State v. RiceSearch
-
We have held that this bedrock procedural guarantee applies to both federal and state prosecutions. Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
a defendant to mean those who actually testify at trial, cf. Woodsides v. StateSearch
-
s accusers is a concept that dates back to Roman times. See Coy v. IowaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s Case , Kel. J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (treason). But see King v. WestbeerSearch
-
s Bench answered this question in the affirmative, in the widely reported misdemeanor libel case of King v. PaineSearch
-
cf. Carmell v. TexasSearch
-
Many who expressed this view acknowledged that it meant the statutes were in derogation of the common law. See King v. EriswellSearch
-
were applying the cross-examination rule even to examinations by justices of the peace in felony cases. See King v. DinglerSearch
-
King v. WoodcockSearch
-
cf. King v. RadbourneSearch
-
Queen v. BeestonSearch
-
Draft of Argument in Sewall v. HancockSearch
-
Amendment. Early state decisions shed light upon the original understanding of the common-law right. State v. WebbSearch
-
Id., at 104. Similarly, in State v. CampbellSearch
-
was inadmissible in criminal cases even if the accused had a previous opportunity to cross-examine. See Finn v. CommonwealthSearch
-
State v. AtkinsSearch
-
but only after reaffirming that admissibility depended on a prior opportunity for cross-examination. See United States v. MacombSearch
-
State v. HouserSearch
-
Kendrick v. StateSearch
-
Bostick v. StateSearch
-
Commonwealth v. RichardsSearch
-
State v. HillSearch
-
Johnston v. StateSearch
-
accord, Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
White v. IllinoisSearch
-
of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding. See Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
We do not infer from these that the Framers thought exceptions would apply even to prior testimony. Cf. Lilly v. VirginiaSearch
-
s prior trial testimony. Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
hearing testimony is admissible only if the defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine. See Mancusi v. StubbsSearch
-
California v. GreenSearch
-
cf. Kirby v. UnitedSearch
-
we excluded the testimony where the government had not established unavailability of the witness. See Barber v. PageSearch
-
cf. Motes v. UnitedSearch
-
We similarly excluded accomplice confessions where the defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine. See Roberts v. RussellSearch
-
Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
beyond prior opportunity for cross-examination when the hearsay statement at issue was not testimonial. See Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
plurality opinion). Even our recent cases, in their outcomes, hew closely to the traditional line. Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
admitted testimony from a preliminary hearing at which the defendant had examined the witness. Lilly v. VirginiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial