Library Hours: May 28 - Aug 31: 8am - Midnight

You are here: Library Home > Spotlight on the Confrontation Clause

Spotlight on the Confrontation Clause:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
U.S. Const. amend. VI

This page compiles information surrounding two cases being heard by the United States Supreme Court during its 2005-2006 term:  Davis v. Washington, 154 Wash. 2d 291, 111 P.3d 844 (2005), cert. granted, 126 S.Ct. 547 (U.S. Oct. 31, 2005) (No. 05-5224) and Hammon v. Indiana, 829 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. 2005), cert. granted, 126 S.Ct. 552 (U.S. Oct. 31, 2005) (No. 05-5705).  Both cases raise issues implicated in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

Professor Friedman's Blog

Biographies of Prof. Richard Friedman and Jeffrey L. Fisher

 

Note: Materials will be added as compiled. 

Contents: Background & Description of Issues | Records and Briefs | Authorities Cited | Selected Bibliography on the Confrontation Clause

Background & Description of Issues

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The meaning of this provision, known as the Confrontation Clause, has long been uncertain. For many years, the Supreme Court interpreted it as a broad but very lax proscription against the admission of hearsay evidence on behalf of a prosecution; under the regime of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 556 (1980), if a court deemed a hearsay statement to be sufficiently reliable, the Confrontation Clause usually posed no barrier to admissibility, and if a statement fit within a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception that was deemed sufficient to satisfy the reliability test. Crawford rejected this doctrine, holding that the principal focus of the Clause is statements that are testimonial in nature. An out-of-court statement that meets that description may not be admitted against an accused to prove the truth of what it asserts unless the accused has had an opportunity to cross-examine the maker of the statement and that person – the witness – is unavailable to testify at trial. The Court did not find it necessary in Crawford to offer a comprehensive definition of “testimonial,” because it regarded the statement at issue in that case – a recorded statement made in response to police interrogation at the station-house – as testimonial under any conceivable definition.

The two pending cases are expected to help clarify the meaning of the term “testimonial.” In Davis, the complainant reported a domestic assault to a 911 operator; the incident had occurred shortly before the call, but the accused was out of the house by the time the complainant made the accusation. The complainant did not testify at trial, and the prosecution proved its case on the basis of a tape of the 911 call. In Hammon, too, the state secured conviction on a domestic violence charge though the complainant did not testify at trial; instead, the police officer to whom she made the accusation relayed it to the trial. Petitioners in both cases ask the Supreme Court to adopt the principle that an accusation made to a police officer (or other government agent with significant law enforcement responsibilities) is testimonial for purposes of the Crawford doctrine.

Records and Briefs in Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana: Party Records & Briefs | Amicus Briefs

Party Records & Briefs

  • Davis Brief for Petitioner, December 22, 2005 (pdf)
  • Brief of Petitioner Hershel Hammon, December 22, 2005 (pdf)
  • Hammon Petitioner's Reply Brief in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, September 20, 2005 (pdf)
  • Hammon Respondent State of Indiana's Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, undated (pdf)
  • Hammon Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, August 5, 2005 (pdf)

Amicus Briefs

  • Davis Brief of Amici Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia in Support of Petitioner, undated (pdf)
  • Davis and Hammon Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Washington and the Indiana Civil Liberties Union in Support of Petitioners, undated (pdf)
  • Hammon Brief of Amici Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia in Support of Petitioner, undated (pdf)
  • Hammon (petition for Writ of Certiorari) Brief of Amici Curiae the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner, undated (pdf)

Back to Top

Authorities Cited

Note: This section provides access to  the sources cited in the Davis and Hammon briefs and information found on Professor Friedman's blog.  Materials will continue to be added as they are compiled.

Cases  |  Other Judicial Authorities  |  Constitutional Provisions  |  Statutes & Rules  |  Other Authorities

Cases

  • Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (pdf)
  • Aveson v. Kinnaird, 102 Eng. Rep. 1258 (K.B. 1805) (pdf)
  • Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (pdf)
  • Binns v. State, 26 Am. Rep. 48 (Ind.) (pdf)
  • Blakely v. Washington, No. 02-1632 (U.S. 2004) (pdf)
  • Bockting v. Bayer, No. 02-15866 (9th Cir. 2005) (pdf)
  • Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) (pdf)
  • Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (pdf)
  • Bratton v. State, No. 05-03-01773-CR (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • Brawner v. State, 278 Ga. 316 (2004) (pdf)
  • Brown v. Uphoff, No. 03-8019 (10th Cir. 2004) (pdf)
  • Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (pdf)
  • Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (pdf)
  • California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1969) (pdf)
  • City of Tacoma v. State, 117 Wash. 2d 348 (1991) (pdf)
  • Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, No. SJC-09329 (Mass. 2005) (pdf)
  • Commonwealth v. Hackett, 84 Mass. Rep. 136 (1861) (pdf)
  • Commonwealth v. M'Pike, 57 Mass. Rep. 181 (1849) (pdf)
  • Courson v. State, No. 2-04-130-CR (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • Crawford v. Washington, No. 02-9410 (U.S. 2004) (pdf)
  • Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988) (pdf)
  • Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988) (pdf)
  • Dorchy v. Jones, No. 04-1797 (6th Cir. 2005) (pdf)
  • Dutton, Warden v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 (1970) (pdf)
  • Evans v. State, 838 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 2002) (pdf)
  • Ewing v. California (order), 535 U.S. 969 (2002) (pdf)
  • Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (pdf)
  • Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (pdf)
  • Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (pdf)
  • Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (pdf)
  • Fowler v. Indiana, No. 49A02-0310-CR-930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • Garrett v. State, No. 04-97-00411-CR (Bexar Cty. Dist. Ct. 1999) (pdf)
  • Hammon v. State, No. 52A02-0308-CR-693 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • Harris v. State, 1 Tex. App. 74 (1876) (pdf)
  • Herren v. People, 63 P. 833 (Colo. 1900) (pdf)
  • Hornbeck v. State, 35 Ohio St. 277 (1879) (pdf)
  • Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990) (pdf)
  • In re E.H. (docket), No. 100202 (Ill. Ct. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • Insurance Company v. Mosley, 75 U.S. 397 (8 Wall.) (1868-1869) (pdf)
  • Jenkins v. State, 278 Ga. 598 (2004) (pdf)
  • Jimenez v. California (docket), No. 04-8704 (U.S. 2005) (pdf)
  • Jones v. United States, No. 02-CM-271 (D.C. Ct. App. 2003) (pdf)
  • Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) (pdf)
  • Keller v. State, 431 S.E.2d 411 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (pdf)
  • Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987) (pdf)
  • Kraner v. State, 61 Miss. 158 (1883) (pdf)
  • Le v. State, No. 2002-DP-01855-SCT (Miss. 2005) (pdf)
  • Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986) (pdf)
  • Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999) (pdf)
  • Lockyer v. Andrade (order), 535 U.S. 969 (2002) (pdf)
  • Lopez v. State, No. 1D03-2761 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (pdf)
  • Mason v. State, No. 05-04-00451-CR (Tex. Ct. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895) (pdf)
  • Mayes v. State, 64 Miss. 329 (1886) (pdf)
  • McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, No. 03-1693 (U.S. 2005) (pdf)
  • McDaniel v. State, 16 Miss. 401 (1847) (pdf)
  • Moody v. State, 277 Ga. 676 (2004) (pdf)
  • Mungo v. Duncan, No. 03-2706 (2d Cir. 2004) (pdf)
  • Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999) (pdf)
  • Napier v. State, No. 55A01-0406-CR-237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (pdf)
  • People v. Adams, No. C040891 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Ah Lee, 60 Cal. 85 (1882) (pdf)
  • People v. Aubrey, No. E035037 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Bechtol, No. 246345 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004 (pdf)
  • People v. Bryant, No. 247039 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Cage, No. E034242 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Callaghan, 4 Utah 49 (1885) (pdf)
  • People v. Corella, 18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 660 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Cortes, 2004 NYSlipOp 24185 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (pdf)
  • People v. Fry, No. 03SC98 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Giles, No. B166937 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Giles, No. B166937 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) modified (pdf)
  • People v. Hernandez, 2005 NYSlipOp 25007 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (pdf)
  • People v. Herrera, No. E036759 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • People v. Jiles, No. E034087 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Jimenez, No. B164534 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. King, 121 P.3d 234 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • People v. Ko, 2005 NYSlipOp 00632 (App. Div. 2005) (pdf)
  • People v. Lee, No. B166204 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. McGee, 1 Denio 19 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1845) (pdf)
  • People v. Monterroso, 34 Cal 4th 743 (2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Moscat, 2004 NYSlipOp 24090 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Moore, No. 01CA1760 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Newland, 2004 NYSlipOp 03050 (App. Div. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Ramirez, No. 242381 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Rogers, 2004 NYSlipOp 05490 (App. Div. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Ruiz, No. PA044100 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. Simonds, 19 Cal. 275 (1861) (pdf)
  • People v. Simpson, 238 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) (pdf)
  • People v. Victors, No. 2-03-0486 (Ill. Ct. App.) (pdf)
  • People v. Walker, No. 250006 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • People v. West, No. 1-02-2358 (Ill. Ct. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (2000) (pdf)
  • Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (pdf)
  • R v. Bedingfield, 14 Cox Crim. 341 (Nowich Winter Assized 1879) (pdf)
  • R v. Brasier, 168 Eng. Rep. 202 (pdf)
  • R v. Clarke, 171 Eng. Rep. 633 (pdf)
  • R v. Forbes, Holt 601 (York Spring Assizes 1814) (pdf)
  • R v. Foster, 172 Eng. Rep. 1261 (1834) (pdf)
  • R v. Guttridges, 173 Eng. Rep. 916 (pdf)
  • R v. Megson, 173 Eng. Rep. 894 (1840) (pdf)
  • R v. Osborne, 174 Eng. Rep. 662 (pdf)
  • R v. Radbourne, 168 Eng. Rep. 330 (1787) (pdf)
  • R v. Smith, 171 Eng. Rep. 357 (Newcastle Summer Assizes 1817) (pdf)
  • R v. Walker, 174 Eng. Rep. 266 (1839) (pdf)
  • R v. Wink, 172 Eng. Rep. 1293 (1834) (pdf)
  • R v. Woodcock, 1 Leach 500 (Old Bailey January Session 1789) (pdf)
  • Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (pdf)
  • Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989) (pdf)
  • Siler v. Ohio, No. 04-6765 (U.S. cert. granted Dec. 6, 2004) (pdf)
  • Smith v. United States, No. 92-CF-158 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (pdf)
  • Spencer v. State, 162 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. Ct. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Aki, No. 24573 (Haw. Ct. App. 2003) (pdf)
  • State v. Alvarez (summary), CA-CR 2002-0084 (Ariz. 2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Anderson, No. E2004-00694-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Ballos, No. 98-1905-CR (Wis. Ct. App. 1999) (pdf)
  • State v. Banks, 2004-Ohio-6522 (Ohio Ct. App.) (pdf)
  • State v. Barnes, 2004 ME 105 (2004) (pdf)
  • State v. Branch, A-78-03 (N.J. 2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Brown, 903 P.2d 459 (Wash. 1995) (pdf)
  • State v. Carlton, 48 Vt. 638 (1876) (pdf)
  • State v. Clark, No. COA03-652 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • State v. Cotto, A-56-03 (N.J. 2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Cox, No. 04-42 (La. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • State v. Davidson, 30 Vt. 377 (1858) (pdf)
  • State v. Davis, No. 73893-9 (Wash. 2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Dixon, 37 Wash. App. 867 (1984) (pdf)
  • State v. Estoup, 39 La. Ann. 725 (1897) (pdf)
  • State v. Forrest, No. COA03-806 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • State v. Hale, No. 03-0417-CR (Wis. 2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Hill, 160 Ohio App.3d 324 (2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Hopkins, 117 P.3d 377 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Houser, 26 Mo. 431 (1858) (pdf)
  • State v. Kester, No. 0001017369 (Del. Super. Ct. 2001) (pdf)
  • State v. Lewis, No. 558PA04 (N.C. 2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Meeks, No. 89,204 (Kan. 2004) (pdf)
  • State v. Morrison, No. 22386-4-II (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (pdf)
  • State v. Nix, 2004-Ohio-5502 (Ohio Ct. App.) (pdf)
  • State v. Parks, 116 P.3d 631 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Pomeroy, 25 Kan. 349 (1881) (pdf)
  • State v. Powers, 124 Wash. App. 92 (2004) (pdf)
  • State v. Robinson, 27 So. 129 (La. 1900) (pdf)
  • State v. Saporen, No. 31889 (Minn. 1939) (pdf)
  • State v. Siler, 2003-Ohio-5749 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003) (pdf)
  • State v. Siler, 2004-Ohio-1690 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (pdf)
  • State v. Snowden, No. 42a04 (Md. Ct. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Staten, No. 3955 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005) (pdf)
  • State v. Wiggins, No. COA02-959 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003) (pdf)
  • State v. Williamson, 996 P.2d. 1097 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (pdf)
  • State v. Wright, No. A03-1197 (Minn. 2005) (pdf)
  • Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (pdf)
  • Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409 (1985) (pdf)
  • Thompson v. Trevanion, Skinner 402 (pdf)
  • Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, No. 04-278 (U.S. 2005) (pdf)
  • Trial of John Lilburn and John Wharton, 3 State Trials 148 (1637) (pdf)
  • Trial of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, 1 State Trials 52 (1554) (pdf)
  • Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, 2 State Trials 74 (1603) (pdf)
  • United States v. Arnold, No. 04-5384 (6th Cir. 2005) (pdf)
  • United States v. Baker, No. 00-13083 (11th Cir. 2005) (pdf)
  • United States v. Bordeaux, No. 04-1369 (8th Cir. 2004) (pdf)
  • United States v. Brun, No. 04-4208 (8th Cir. 2005) (pdf)
  • United States v. Cromer, No. 02-2394 (6th Cir. 2004) (pdf)
  • United States v. Franklin and Clarke, Nos. 03-2439 and 03-2440 (6th Cir. 2005) (pdf)
  • United States v. Gray, No. 3:03-00182 (S.D. W. Va. 2005) (pdf)
  • United States v. Hinton, No. 03-3803 (3d Cir. 2005) (pdf)
  • United States v. Jordan, No. Crim. 04-CR-229-B (D. Colo. 2005) (pdf)
  • United States v. Joy, No. 98 CR 94 (7th Cir. 1999) (pdf)
  • United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (1988) (pdf)
  • United States v. Rueda-Rivera, No. 04-50322 (5th Cir. 2005) (pdf)
  • United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (pdf)
  • United States v. Saget, No. 03-1200 (2d Cir. 2004) (pdf)
  • United States v. Solomon, No. 04-5063 (10th Cir. 2005) (pdf)
  • United States v. Stewart and Bacanovic, Nos. 04-3953(L)-cr and 04-4081(Con)-cr (2d Cir. 2006) (pdf)
  • United States v. Summers, No. 04-2121 (10th Cir. 2005) (pdf)
  • United States v. Washington, No. 3:02cr146 (D. Conn. 2003) (pdf)
  • United States v. Webb, No. DV-339-04 (D.C. Super. Ct. 2004) (pdf)
  • United States v. Wilmore, No. 03-10297 (9th Cir. 2004) (pdf)
  • Upton v. Commonwealth, 172 Va. 654 (1939) (pdf)
  • Van Orden v. Perry, No. 03-1500 (U.S. 2005) (pdf)
  • Weldon v. State, 32 Ind. 81 (1869) (pdf)
  • White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (1992) (pdf)

Back to Top

Other Judicial Authorities

Back to Top

Constitutional Provisions

Back to Top

Statutes & Rules

  • California Evidence Code section 1370 (html)
  • California Penal Code section 653x (html)
  • Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 (html)
  • Federal Rule of Evidence 611 (html)
  • Federal Rule of Evidence 703 (html)
  • Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (html)
  • Federal Rule of Evidence 804 (html)
  • Wisconsin Statutes section 908.45(1) (html)

Back to Top

Other Authorities

  • Andrew Choo. "Crawford v. Washington: A View from Across the Atlantic," Int'l Commentary on Evidence 2, no. 1 (2004): article 4 (bepress - may require authentication)
  • "Crawford Analysis Flowchart," The Voice (American Prosecutors Research Institute. Nat'l Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women) 1, no. 1 (2004):  4 (pdf)
  • Cindy Dyer, Christian Fisanick & Herb Tanner, "Crawford Logic Tree," The Voice (American Prosecutors Research Institute. Nat'l Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women) 1, no. 1 (2004):  5 (pdf)
  • Cindy Dyer, "Sample Crawford Predicate Questions," The Voice (American Prosecutors Research Institute. Nat'l Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women) 1, no. 1 (2004):  8-9 (pdf)
  • Jeffrey L. Fisher, "Crawford v. Washington: Reframing the Right to Confrontation."  Seminar Handout, State Bar of Michigan, Criminal Law Section, President's Day Weekend Ski Conference, February 20-22, 2005 (pdf)
  • Jeffrey L. Fisher, Richard D. Friedman & Bridget M. McCormack, "Listening to Crawford" (pdf)
  • "Foreward: Perspectives on Crawford v. Washington," Int'l Commentary on Evidence 2, no. 1 (2004): article 1 (bepress - may require authentication)
  • Richard D. Friedman, "Confrontation and the Definition of Chutzpa," Israel L. Rev. 31, nos. 1-3 (1997): 506-35 (pdf)
  • Richard D. Friedman, "Grappling with the Meaning of 'Testimonial'" (pdf)
  • Richard D. Friedman & Bridget McCormack. "Dial-In Testimony," U. Pa. L. Rev. 150, no. 4 (2001-2002): 1171-1253 (pdf)
  • Frank R. Herrmann, "The Uses of History in Crawford v. Washington," Int'l Commentary on Evidence 2, no. 1 (2004): article 5 (bepress - may require authentication)
  • Letter from Richard D. Friedman to Hon. Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Chair of the Court of Appeals of Maryland Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (Nov. 30, 2004) (pdf)
  • Adam M. Krischer, "Though Justice May be Blind, It is Not Stupid: Applying Common Sense to Crawford v. Washington in Domestic Violence Cases," The Voice (American Prosecutors Research Institute. Nat'l Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women) 1, no. 1 (2004):  1-10 (pdf)
  • Tom Lininger, "Prosecuting Batterers After Crawford," Va. L. Rev. 91, no. 3 (2005): 747-822 (pdf)
  • Miguel A. Mendez, "Crawford v. Washington: A Critique," Stan. L. Rev. 57, no. 2 (2004-2005): 569-610 (HeinOnline - may require authentication)
  • Robert P. Mosteller, "Crawford v. Washington: Encouraging and Ensuring the Confrontation of Witnesses," U. Richmond L. Rev. 39, no. 2 (2004-2005): 511-626 (HeinOnline - may require authentication)
  • Dale A. Nance, "Rethinking Confrontation after Crawford," Int'l Commentary on Evidence 2, no. 1 (2004): article 2 (bepress - may require authentication)
  • Thomas J. Reed, "Crawford v. Washington and the Irretrievable Breakdown of a Union: Separating the Confrontation Clause from the Hearsay Rule," S. C. L. Rev. 56, no. 1 (2004-2005): 185-228  (HeinOnline - may require authentication)
  • Sarah J. Summers, "The Right to Confronation after Crawford v. Washington: A "Continental European" Perspective," Int'l Commentary on Evidence 2, no. 1 (2004): article 3 (bepress - may require authentication)

Back to Top

Selected Bibliography on the Confrontation Clause

This page was created with the collaborative effort of Kincaid C. Brown, Ann Chase, Barbara H. Garavaglia and Nancy Marshall

Back to Top

Last Updated 04/23/07

Address: 801 Monroe St, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1210 Tel: 734-764-9324 To submit comments or suggestions, please use this form Copyright 2002-2014 Regents of the University of Michigan | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement Add to Google