Which case shaped Confrontation Clause interpretation by requiring cross-examination for certain testimonial evidence?

Which case shaped Confrontation Clause interpretation by requiring cross-examination for certain testimonial evidence?

• A. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
• B. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
• C. Crawford v. Washington (2004)
• D. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that the Confrontation Clause requires cross-examination for testimonial statements offered against a defendant. Crawford v. Washington (2004) established that when the government tries to admit a witness’s testimonial statements who did not testify at trial, the defendant must have had an opportunity to cross-examine that witness. If the declarant is unavailable and there was no prior opportunity for cross-examination, the statement is inadmissible. This case reshaped Confrontation Clause doctrine by replacing the older focus on reliability with a requirement that testimonial evidence be subjected to cross-examination. Crawford also draws a sharp line between testimonial and non-testimonial statements, emphasizing that statements given to police in the course of investigating a crime are generally testimonial and thus subject to this cross-examination rule. However, statements made for purposes other than establishing past events for prosecution (non-testimonial) may not trigger the same requirement. Other choices don’t fit because they address different constitutional issues. Brown v. Board of Education centers on racial segregation in public schools, Miranda v. Arizona concerns rights of suspects during police interrogation, and Plessy v. Ferguson deals with the legality of racial segregation.

The key idea is that the Confrontation Clause requires cross-examination for testimonial statements offered against a defendant. Crawford v. Washington (2004) established that when the government tries to admit a witness’s testimonial statements who did not testify at trial, the defendant must have had an opportunity to cross-examine that witness. If the declarant is unavailable and there was no prior opportunity for cross-examination, the statement is inadmissible. This case reshaped Confrontation Clause doctrine by replacing the older focus on reliability with a requirement that testimonial evidence be subjected to cross-examination.

Crawford also draws a sharp line between testimonial and non-testimonial statements, emphasizing that statements given to police in the course of investigating a crime are generally testimonial and thus subject to this cross-examination rule. However, statements made for purposes other than establishing past events for prosecution (non-testimonial) may not trigger the same requirement.

Other choices don’t fit because they address different constitutional issues. Brown v. Board of Education centers on racial segregation in public schools, Miranda v. Arizona concerns rights of suspects during police interrogation, and Plessy v. Ferguson deals with the legality of racial segregation.