¶ … Hearsay evidence and the Confrontation Clause of Amendment VI. The main objective of the American constitutional provision under study was: prevention of ex-parte affidavit deposition, which was employed against prisoners in place of personal questioning and cross-questioning of witnesses. (CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Sixth Amendment).

The main objectives that this paper will look at include:

The confrontation right is one among the basic assurances of liberty and life

The 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause assures one key aspect of the process of adversarial trial (Sixth Amendment -- Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)

Challenging questions pertaining to these rights' limits and scope

A set of principles may be derived from available Maryland appeals court and U.S. Supreme Court cases connected with the clause, for aiding busy practitioners or trial judges with speedy and accurate analysis of potential issues relating to it, even right in the midst of trial, where there is no room for calm deliberation.

One issue which continues perplexing courts is whether hearsay declarants (whose outside-of-court claim is provided as proof against the defendant) are also witnesses, despite their never appearing in court for providing their testimonies (thereby escaping cross-examination)

Under the law's current state, in most situations, primary rights of confrontation are settled effectively.

Therefore, this paper will analyze how the clause is employed in the present-day court system, in addition to criminal justice ideals.

Case Examples

(2004). LII / Legal Information Institute. CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON. Retrieved April 3, 2016, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html

[Petitioner in the case was tried at court for attack and an attempt at murder. Washington State wished to introduce his wife's recorded statement made in the course of law enforcement interrogation, as proof that the purpose for stabbing wasn't self-defense. His wife, Sylvia, didn't testify before trial court judges owing to the marital privilege of the State. Petitioner contended that admission of the evidence implies a violation of his Amendment VI confrontation right. The Supreme Court's verdict is reversed, with the case remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this view. It is ordered thus.]

(2006). LII / Legal Information Institute. DAVIS v. WASHINGTON. Retrieved April 3, 2016, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-5224.ZO.html

[In the Davis v. Washington case, Michelle McCottrey called 911 while fighting (physically) with defendant, Adrian Davis -- her boyfriend. Michelle was panicky, and as a response to questions posed by the 911 operator, identified her boyfriend as the individual who was hitting her. The defendant was accused of felony breach of a domestic no-contact directive. In the Davis v. Washington case, the issue was the determination of when the declarations made to the 911 operator, or at the scene of crime are "testimonial," thereby being subject to Confrontation Clause requirements. The 911 emergency call recording was admitted in the trial court as evidence, over defendant objections. Davis was found guilty, but he appealed. Washington's Supreme Court and the lower appeals court affirmed.]

(2009). LII / Legal Information Institute. MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. Massachusetts. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-591.ZO.html

[Massachusetts State tried defendant Melendez-Diaz for cocaine distribution and trafficking. The question raised here is whether the affidavits can be considered "testimonial," making their affiant "witnesses" that will be subject to defendant confrontation, as part of Amendment VI. Melendez-Diaz was judged guilty. At trial, analysis certificates prepared by State Crime Lab analysts were introduced for proving that cocaine was, indeed, the substance confiscated from the defendant. Analysts didn't testify at the trial. The defendant, on appeal, maintained that analysis certificates were testimonial, with their admission at trial a violation of his constitutional Confrontation rights. The appellate court of Massachusetts State affirmed and the defendant next took his appeal to the Supreme Court, which presented six bases for ruling that certificate admission didn't violate or implicate the Confrontation Clause.]

(2011). LII / Legal Information Institute. PETITIONER v. RICHARD PERRY BRYANT. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-150.ZO.html

[Police officials in Detroit state dispatched to the parking lot of a petrol station, and found the wounded Anthony Covington, who claimed to have been shot outside of Bryant's residence, by Bryant. At trial, officers testified Covington's statement. Bryant was pronounced guilty of committing murder. The officers' testimony was challenged by Bryant, who called it testimonial hearsay. In the end, his conviction was reversed by Michigan's Supreme Court, which held that the Confrontation Clause, explained in the Crawford v. Washington case, rendered the statements of Covington inadmissible testimonial hearsay. The State's request for...

(2005). Crawford v. Washington, Encouraging and Ensuring the Confrontation of Witnesses. University of Richmond Law Review, 39(2). Retrieved April 8, 2016, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1109208
[In the Crawford v. Washington case (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States drastically transformed analysis of the Confrontation Clause for admitting hearsay statements. A very strict rule was created, of real-time confrontation at court, for a limited group of included hearsay, labeled "testimonial statements." A small number of exemptions were specified. This novel regime was markedly different from the reliability/trustworthiness analysis mode of the 1980 Ohio v. Roberts case, which offered very wide, though exceedingly shallow, cover against hearsay admission offered against the suspect by prosecution. The article studies primary uncertainties and teachings arising from the court ruling of the Crawford v. Washington case].

MILLER v. STATE. (2004). Retrieved April 08, 2016, from http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=441194

[In the first proposition, the plaintiff maintained that trial court choice of granting Rashad Barnes a chance to inform the jury of what Hanson told him, in fact, violated plaintiff's Amendment V, VI and XIV rights. The court was urged to prove that the statements of Hanson to Barnes could be admitted under a strongly established hearsay rule exception. While it may have been stated more clearly in records, the State maintains that the hearsay rule's "against penal interest" allowance forms appropriate grounds for admitting the evidence.]

HUNT v. STATE. (2009). Retrieved April 8, 2016, from http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=456603

[The jury of Oklahoma County's District Court tried and convicted plaintiff Randal Ray Hunt of malicious first-degree murder. It discovered the presence of 3 provoking circumstances and suggested death penalty. Trial court's verdict was passed accordingly. The plaintiff perfected his appeal from this ruling and sentence. Upon appeal, the plaintiff claimed the recording to be testimonial hearsay evidence that denied his confrontation rights, under Amendment VI. The state's appellate brief states that in accordance with the doctrine of forfeiture as a result of wrongdoing, the plaintiff forfeited any claim to violation of the confrontation clause].

TAYLOR v. STATE. (2011). Retrieved April 8, 2016, from http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?cite=248 P.3d 362

[In the first proposition, the plaintiff contended that evidence doesn't suffice in support of the verdict handed out for him, for firing with an intention to kill. Plaintiff's claim for determining whether any reasonable finder of fact in the trial could have determined key crime elements beyond any reasonable doubt, following a review of proof in the most favorable light for prosecution, was reviewed. The second proposition maintains that an error was made by the district court, in its failure to provide instruction that every count ought to be independently considered. Counsel's failure of requesting this kind of instruction at the trial sets aside all except plain error. The plaintiff contends in the third proposition that admission of the extrajudicial declarations made by his grandmother violated hearsay rule as well as his constitutional confrontation right.]

Sklansky, D. (2009). Hearsay's Last Hurrah. Supreme Court Review, 1. Retrieved April 9, 2016, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1531334

[The latest reinterpretation made by the Supreme Court in connection with the constitutional Confrontation Clause, as seen in the following cases: Davis v. Washington, Crawford v. Washington, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, and Giles v. California, has been commended for decoupling of hearsay law and Amendment VI. However, in truth, Crawford v. Washington and its offspring have linked constitutional analysis and the rule of hearsay more firmly than ever before. The rule of hearsay has, since long, been retreating in common-law circles, and the influences that fuel this retreat will, ultimately, probably destabilize the rule within America. However, as of now, Crawford v. Washington is offering hearsay its final hooray -- at least when it comes to introduction of evidence against the suspect in a criminal case. It is indicated at times that nations following civil law are beginning to take a liking to the rule of hearsay, at the same time as nations following common law are tiring of it. This isn't quite right. Nations following civil law in the last few decades (especially European nations) have strengthened criminal defendants' right of questioning their accusers at trial or making magistrates question them. This, however, represents a procedural privilege, rather than rule of evidence: statements aren't excluded, rather, an opportunity is merely given to challenge these statements.]

Fenner. (2009). Today's Confrontation Clause (After Crawford and Melendez-Diaz). Retrieved April 9, 2016, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=150725

[This Article deals with the sharp turn taken by the law with regard to Confrontation Clause. Following a concise examination of the historical facts relating to the Supreme Court's interpretation of this Clause, the paper begins discussing its new interpretation, as primarily evidenced in the Supreme Court's view in the 2004 Crawford v.…