Legal Question in Civil Rights Law in Michigan

there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. The issue is whether your right to confrontation was violated within the context under which the hearsay statement came in, and whether under the totality of the case the "error" if any was material to your eventual conviction. You can contact us for a free consultation 877 887 9562

You may have been denied your Constitutional right to Confrontation, under the US Supreme Court case (2004) of Crawford v. Washington. Your court may have applied the wrong case law. The older law, based on the Supreme Court case of Roberts, is now obsolete.

Crawford stabbed a man (Lee) who had allegedly tried to rape his wife, Sylvia. Crawford admitted the stabbing of Lee, but claimed that the stabbing was in self-defense.

Sylvia was *not* available to testify at Crawford's trial.

At Crawford's trial, the State played for the jury Sylvia�s tape-recorded statement to the police describing the stabbing of Lee, even though Crawford had no opportunity for cross-examination of Sylvia, either at the trial or beforehand.

Sylvia had admitted to the police that she led Crawford to Lee�s apartment and, thus, the State claimed that she had aided and abetted in the assault.

The State agreed that Sylvia's tape-recorded statement was hearsay, but it invoked the hearsay exception for statements made out-of-court that are against the "penal interest" of the statement-maker. The Court held that the hearsay (the tape of Sylvia) could be admitted under this exception.

The Supreme Court of Washington State upheld Crawford�s conviction over his objection that the use of the out-of-court statement by Sylvia denied him his Constitutional right to confrontation.

The Washington court relied on the prior 1980 US Supreme Court case of Ohio v. Roberts. That case allowed the use of hearsay statements if the trial court found that the out-of-court statement was "reliable," even though there had been no cross-examination of the statement-maker by the accused.

Sylvia�s statement was deemed by the Washington State Supreme court to be "reliable" under the Roberts test, and it could therefore be admitted, and Crawford's conviction was upheld.

Crawford countered: no matter what the state law was about hearsay, admitting the evidence against him would violate his Sixth Amendment federal constitutional right to be �confronted with the witnesses against him."

The US Supreme Court ruled for Crawford and overruled the Roberts case.

The US Supreme Court ruled that admitting out-of-court statements just because they are deemed "reliable" by a judge is fundamentally at odds with the right of confrontation.

The old Roberts test allowed a jury to hear evidence, untested by the adversary process, based on a mere judicial determination of reliability. It thus tries to replace the constitutional method -- that is, cross examination of the adverse witness (here, the dead man)-- with another one.

The trial court admitted Sylvia�s statement against Crawford, despite the fact that he had no opportunity to cross-examine her. That *alone* is sufficient to make out a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Roberts was wrongly decided and is no longer the law.

Where out-of-court testimonial statements are involved, the Constitution requires confrontation of the witness by the accused. State rules about hearsay are irrelevant. They must fall before the Constitution's demands.

Crawford was denied his right to confrontation. That violated the Constitution, and his conviction was reversed.

If you properly preserved your objection to the out-of-court statement, you could get a new trial based on the improper introduction of evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause.