| Crawford v. Washington | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 10, 2003 Decided March 8, 2004 | |
| Full case name | Michael D. Crawford v. State of Washington |
| Docket no. | 02-9410 |
| Citations | 541 U.S. 36 (more) 124 S. Ct. 1354; 158 L. Ed. 2d 177; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1838; 72 U.S.L.W. 4229; 63 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1077; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 181 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, Thurston County Superior Court, 11-19-99; reversed, 107 Wn. App. 1025 (2001); reversed, conviction reinstated, 54 P.3d 656 (Wash. 2002); cert. granted, 539 U.S. 914 (2003). |
| Subsequent | None |
| Questions presented | |
| Does playing out-of-court testimony to a jury, with no chance for cross-examination, violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment guarantee that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him? | |
| Holding | |
| The use at trial of out-of-court statements made to police by an unavailable witness violated a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Rehnquist (in judgment), joined by O'Connor |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. VI, XIV | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| Ohio v. Roberts (1980) | |
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable may not be admitted without cross-examination.