confrontation crawford v washington (2004) mike denton [email protected] 512-854-9896...
TRANSCRIPT
Confrontation CRAWFORD V WASHINGTON (2004)
Mike [email protected]
512-854-9896
How Did We Get Here?Where Are We Going?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense
United States ConstitutionSixth Amendment
In what % of Domestic Violence cases that you hear does the complaining witness fail to come to court or have a memory loss or refuse to testify or….?
ConfrontationDomestic Violence Trials
Marital Privilege/Absent Witness Witness Confrontation Hearsay Exceptions
Excited Utterances
(Zuliani v State, Tex Crim App ‘03)Present Sense ImpressionsMedical Treatment StatementsOther
Domestic Violence TrialsPre-Crawford
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980)
Where witness was unavailable, out of court statements were admissible over a confrontation objection IF:
Statement fell within firmly rooted hearsay exception OR
Statement had "indicia of reliability" such that admission of it comports with the "substance of the constitutional protection."
Pre-Crawford Law
Crawford
THE CASE
Crawford v. Washington
Confrontation Clause excludes testimonial statements unless: - declarant testifies OR - witness is unavailable and prior statement was cross-examined.Justice Scalia
124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004)
Crawford v. Washington541 U.S. 36 (2004)
FactsConvicted of stabbing a man he claimed tried to
rape his wifeRecorded statement made by Crawford’s wife to
policeWife unavailable at trial due to spousal privilege
Holding: Playing of out of court statement violated
defendant’s Confrontation rights
(Classic, Formal, Police “Interrogation”)
Crawford v. Washington541 U.S. 36 (2004)
Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements unless:Witness is available to testify, ORDefendant has had a prior opportunity for cross
Left open the question of what was testimonial
The Confrontation Right
What it is:Procedural right guaranteed by the Constitution
that the State must bring witnesses to court
Attaches at trial. Does not apply to:
Pretrial hearingsProbation revocations (CCA has not addressed)
(But PSI…)Parole revocations
SATISFYING CRAWFORD
1. Declarant Testifies 2. Unavailable + Opportunity for
Prior Cross3. Not testimonial 4. Forfeiture by wrongdoing
SATISFYING CRAWFORD
1. Declarant testifies
DECLARANT TESTIFIES
Crawford v. Washington
Confrontation Clause excludes testimonial statements
- unless declarant testifies
Justice Scalia
124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004)
Memory Problems At TrialMemory Problems At Trial
SATISFYING CRAWFORD
2.Unavailable witness-prior testimony was subject to cross by defendant.
PRACTICE POINT
Woman gives statement to police that boyfriend hit her
Later recants to defense investigator
Testifies at trial consistent with initial report but is impeached with recantation to investigator.
Woman gives statement to police that boyfriend hit her
Later recants to defense investigator
Testifies at trial consistent with initial report but is impeached with recantation to investigator.
Hypothetical
PRACTICE POINT
Is there a Confrontation problem with introducing her original statement to the police?
Is there a Hearsay problem with introducing her first statement to the police?
Is there a Confrontation problem with introducing her original statement to the police?
Is there a Hearsay problem with introducing her first statement to the police?
Hypothetical
The Unavailable Witness Sanchez v. State, 354 S.W.3d 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)
Hearing to determine the admissibility of an outcry (Article 38.072 ) provides a defendant with an inadequate opportunity to cross-examine an outcry witness's credibility
Admitting testimony from such a hearing at a trial when the witness is unavailable violates the Sixth Amendment.
What is a prior opportunity to cross? Pre-Trial Bond Hearing Protective Order Disposition
Opportunity Waived Opportunity for “Good” Cross
SATISFYING CRAWFORD
DAVIS V. WASHINGTON
Davis v. Washington
2 Cases Combined.
Davis – 911 Call
Hammon – On Scene Stmt.
Forced to decide “Testimonial”
Justice Scalia
126 S.Ct. 2266 (2006)
DAVIS V. HAMMOND
NOT TESTIMONIAL
Not Testimonial
Circumstances Objectively Indicate
Primary Purpose
Police assistance to meet ongoing emergency.
Not Testimonial
Circumstances Objectively Indicate
Primary Purpose
Police assistance to meet ongoing emergency.
Test
TESTIMONIALTestimonial
Circumstances Objectively Indicate
Primary Purpose
Establish past events relevant to later criminal prosecution.
Testimonial
Circumstances Objectively Indicate
Primary Purpose
Establish past events relevant to later criminal prosecution.
DAVIS V. HAMMOND
1) Actually happening or in the past?
2) Ongoing emergency?
3) Questions needed to resolve emergency?
4) Level of formality.
Primary Purpose - factors:Primary Purpose - factors:
DAVIS V. WASHINGTON
Davis – 911 Call
Ms. McCottrey called 911, described events as they were happening and asked for police help to meet an ongoing emergency.
Ms. McCottrey called 911, described events as they were happening and asked for police help to meet an ongoing emergency.
Facts
DAVIS V. WASHINGTON
1) Statement made as events happening
2) Ongoing emergency
3) Questions needed to resolve emergency
4) Not formal.
911 Call - factors:911 Call - factors:
DAVIS V. WASHINGTON
DAVIS V. WASHINGTON
1) 911 call became testimonial;
2) Once operator gained info necessary to resolve emergency, remainder was testimonial
Not all of 911 call was o.k.:Not all of 911 call was o.k.:
HAMMON – ON SCENE
Hammon – On Scene
-Amy Hammon on porch when police arrive. Everything fine now. No Injuries Observed*.-Police separate people but husband tries to get to wife.-Wife signs affidavit with details saying husband punched her.
-Amy Hammon on porch when police arrive. Everything fine now. No Injuries Observed*.-Police separate people but husband tries to get to wife.-Wife signs affidavit with details saying husband punched her.
Facts
HAMMON – ON SCENE
1) Statement about past events
2) No ongoing emergency-separated (trial ct. findings?)
3) Questions about facts relevant to future criminal prosecution
4) Victim signed affidavit.
On Scene - factors:On Scene - factors:
The Lesson of Davis and Hammon
Similarities between casesDecided together, same issue, but different
outcomes
Analytical framework emerges:Temporal elementTo whom is the statement made? – LE or LE
agentFocus is on the objective purpose of the
statement or interview, not the declarant's expectations.
Michigan v. Bryant
Michigan v. Bryant
Michigan v. Bryant
Emergency – Important factor in primary purpose
Ongoing threat –Broader than initial victim
Perspective- Must consider both declarant and questioner.
Justice Sotomayor
131 S.Ct. 1143 (2011)
CONTEXT ALL Circumstances Ex. Left scene, weapon
used, known history, etc….
NOT TESTIMONIAL
STATEMENTS TO 3rd PARTIES
Crawford v. Washington“An accuser who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony in a sense that a person who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not.”
Justice Scalia
PRACTICE POINTHypothetical
Boyfriend comes over to pick up 4 and 6yr old for visitation. He and victim argue. He punches her, threatens to kill her, rips phone out of the wall and then leaves with kids.
Victim runs next door, frantic about kids, tells neighbor what happened. Neighbor sees bruises. Victim calls 911 frantic about kids and tells dispatcher what happened.
Officers arrive 10 minutes later, she is still frantic about kids, tells what happened, they put out APB, find defendant with kids who are fine.
Boyfriend comes over to pick up 4 and 6yr old for visitation. He and victim argue. He punches her, threatens to kill her, rips phone out of the wall and then leaves with kids.
Victim runs next door, frantic about kids, tells neighbor what happened. Neighbor sees bruises. Victim calls 911 frantic about kids and tells dispatcher what happened.
Officers arrive 10 minutes later, she is still frantic about kids, tells what happened, they put out APB, find defendant with kids who are fine.
ANALYSIS
1. Relevant?
2. Hearsay? Exception?
3. Unavailable?
4. Testimonial/NonTestimonial?
5. Prior Opportunity to Cross?
6. Forfeiture?
REACTING TO THE PLAY
Leading Cases
Reynolds v. United States, (1879) in which the Court held that The Constitution does not protect an accused person from the legitimate consequences of his acts. It grants him the privilege of being confronted with the witnesses against him; but if he voluntarily keeps the witnesses away, he cannot insist on his privilege
Davis v Washington (2006) at 833 “one who obtains the absence of a witness by wrongdoing forfeits the constitutional right to confrontation.”
FORFEITURE-HISTORICAL
Reynolds v. U.S.The Constitution does not protect an individual against the legitimate consequences of his own wrongful acts. “[W]hen absent by his procurement, their evidence is supplied in some lawful way, he is in no condition to assert that his constitutional rights have been violated.”Chief Justice Waite
98 U.S. 145 (1879)
Crawford
“The Rule of Forfeiture by Wrondoing…extinguishes Confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.”
- Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62
“The Rule of Forfeiture by Wrondoing…extinguishes Confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.”
- Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62
GILES CASE
Giles v. California
Giles killed his former girlfriend to keep her from cheating on him. State sought to introduce her prior statements to police.
Murder alone not enough to show forfeiture.Justice Scalia
128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008)
Giles v. California128 S. Ct. 2678 (2008)
Facts:Prosecution for murderWitness unavailable to testify about prior assaults
because she had been murdered
Holding: Forfeiture only occurs when defendant’s actions
show a specific intent to prevent witness from testifying
Started to resolve the question in Crawford regarding what constitutes forfeiture – arose again in Davis
INTENT
The proponent must show an INTENT to procure the unavailability of the
witness.
The proponent must show an INTENT to procure the unavailability of the
witness.
Giles – Unanswered Questions
Case law not well developed – only 250 cases in the nation since Giles
Burden of proof – preponderance or clear and convincing?
Never squarely addressed, but some dicta in Davis
Giles – Burden of Proof
“We take no position on the standards necessary to demonstrate such forfeiture, but federal courts using Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), which codifies the forfeiture doctrine, have generally held the Government to the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, see, e.g., United States v. Scott, 284 F.3d 758, 762 (C.A.7 2002).”Davis, 547 U.S. at 833.
Interestingly, court was looking at the doctrine as codified by the Federal Rules of Evidence
Most waivers of constitutional rights require proof by clear and convincing evidence
Giles – Unanswered Questions
Level of action necessary to lead to forfeiture?Is abuse itself traumatic enough to argue
forfeiture?
Recognized in GilesEarlier abuse, or threats of abuse, intended to
dissuade the victim from resorting to outside help would be highly relevant to this inquiry, as would evidence of ongoing criminal proceedings at which the victim would have been expected to testify.”
Giles – Unanswered Questions
Type of proof necessary to show forfeiture?Often a pre-trial issue, rules of evidence do not
apply
“Moreover, if a hearing on forfeiture is required, Edwards, for instance, observed that ‘hearsay evidence, including the unavailable witness's out-of-court statements, may be considered.”
Davis, 547 U.S. at 833
Evidence available to prosecutors:Jail calls, letters, cell phone records
Forfeiture by Wrongdoing
What it is:
Client has right to have witness brought to court, but can lose that right if:
He/she engaged in wrongful conduct specifically for the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying
Encourages others to do so
PRACTICE POINT
1) Witness is unavailable – 804(a)
2) Act(s) by defendant
3) Intended to make witness unavailable
4) Act(s) made witness unavailable.
Forfeiture
What must you show?What must you show?
No need to prove the defendant threatened the victim… Just that the defendant intentionally committed an act(s) to keep the witness away or not tell the truth
GILES CASE
Domestic Abuse•Intended to dissuade victim from outside help
•Includes conduct to prevent testimony to police or cooperation
Homicide Only?
•Abuse ends in homicide
•May show crime expressed intent to isolate victim and stop reporting
Factors
•Earlier abuse or threats intended to dissuade victim from reporting
•Ongoing criminal proceedings where victim expected to testify.
Quotes from Giles
“It would make no sense to suggest that the oppressing defendant miraculously abandoned the dynamics of abuse.” - Souter, Giles, at 508
“Earlier abuse, or threats of abuse, intended to dissuade the victims from reporting to outside help would be highly relevant.” – Giles, at 506
“It would make no sense to suggest that the oppressing defendant miraculously abandoned the dynamics of abuse.” - Souter, Giles, at 508
“Earlier abuse, or threats of abuse, intended to dissuade the victims from reporting to outside help would be highly relevant.” – Giles, at 506
Justice Souter points the way on Domestic Violence with prior incidents in his concurring opinion in Giles v. California
“The element of intention would normally be satisfied by the intent inferred on the part of the domestic abuser in the classic abusive relationship, which is meant to isolate the victim from outside help, including the aid of law enforcement and the judicial process. If the evidence for admissibility shows a continuing relationship of this sort, it would make no sense to suggest that the oppressing defendant miraculously abandoned the dynamics of abuse the instant before he killed his victim, say in a fit of anger.”
Or the instant before he contacted in violation of an order of protection in an attempt to isolate the victim from the judicial process and aid of law enforcement
Forfeiture
Context
Totality
Context
Totality
Context and Totality
•Pre-Incident
•Incident
•Post-Incident
•Pre-Incident
•Incident
•Post-Incident
PRACTICE POINT
Police reports
Friends/neighbors
Jail calls
Emails/text messages/letters
Court records
Police reports
Friends/neighbors
Jail calls
Emails/text messages/letters
Court records
Forfeiture
Sources of Forfeiture Info:Sources of Forfeiture Info:
PRACTICE POINT
1. Is the victim unavailable?
2. Is there evidence of prior history of abuse?
3. Are there prior/current attempts to dissuade cooperation?
4. Were there ongoing criminal proceedings where victim was going to testify at time of threats?
5. Other Court Orders? Protective Orders, Violated Orders
6. The Offense Itself
Considerations
Things to consider:Things to consider:
Common Evidence Producedin Forfeiture Hearings
Prior Incidents of Domestic Violence (Patterns of Abuse)
Prior Court Orders, Protective Orders, Bond Conditions
Violations of Court Orders Jail Calls Letters, Text Messages, Cards Photos 911 Calls Statements of Defendant/Witness at scene
CLOSING THOUGHTS
PROTECT THE RECORD
1) Trial court should make necessary findings of fact
2) Remember original purpose of particular hearsay rule
6th AM DOES NOT APPLY
6th AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY
1) Civil proceedings
2) Probation revocation (But..)
3) Sentencing hearings?
4) Restitution hearings
5) Suppression hearings
Confrontation does NOT apply:Confrontation does NOT apply:
6th AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY
6) Probable Cause hearings.
7)Hearsay offered by defendant.
Confrontation does NOT apply:Confrontation does NOT apply:
OTHER ISSUES
NOT OFFERED FOR TRUTH
Victim Fear-OK
Victim’s statements of fear admissible
Song - OK
“Corrido” song describing victim’s death found in Def. possession admissible
(People v. Williams 2004) (People v. Gatica 2004)
OTHER ISSUES
IDENTITY OF PERPETRATOR
Under 803(4), the identity of the perpetrator is not ordinarily admissible.
-Can be admissible if there is MEDICAL reason for info.
-Must lay foundation.
Under 803(4), the identity of the perpetrator is not ordinarily admissible.
-Can be admissible if there is MEDICAL reason for info.
-Must lay foundation.
Admissibility
IDENTITY OF PERPETRATOR
What foundation could be established with doctor to show that the identity of the perpetrator IS relevant to medical diagnosis or treatment?
- Standard of care/forms
- Physician liability for safety
What foundation could be established with doctor to show that the identity of the perpetrator IS relevant to medical diagnosis or treatment?
- Standard of care/forms
- Physician liability for safety
Admissibility
MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS
Nebraska-OK
Child said Defendant put his finger in her “peepee”
Ohio - OK
Victim statement to police –testimonial.
Statement to nurse non-testimonial
(State v. Vaught 2004) (State v. Stahl 2005)
Mass - OK
Child statement to doctor OK even if police at hospital
(Comm. v. DeOlivera 2006)
OTHER ISSUES
EXPERT OPINION
1) Expert may rely on hearsay
2) No problem in pathologist relying on autopsy report of another
3) Question whether expert may be “conduit” of inadmissible hearsay.
Considerations:Considerations:
OTHER ISSUES
DYING DECLARATIONS
Crawford v. WashingtonDying declarations are “sui generis” and were admitted at the time the Constitution was adopted.
Justice Scalia
OTHER ISSUES
ADMISSIONS
Wisconsin-OK
Defendant’s statements to his girlfriend OK.
11th Cir. - OK
Defendant’s recorded calls with informant OK even without informant testifying.
7th Cir. -OK
Defendant’s taped statements with informant OK
(State v. Manuel 2004) (U.S. v. Valdes 2007)
(U.S. v. Tolliver 2006)
CRAWFORD NOT RETROACTIVE
Whorton v. BocktingCrawford is not retroactive on collateral review.
It does not apply to convictions that were already “final” as of March 8, 2004.Justice Alito
127 S.Ct. 1173 (2007)
STATES CAN DECIDE
Danforth v. Minnesota
The states may give broader retroactivity to new rules of criminal procedure than that given by federal courts.
Justice Stevens
128 S.Ct. 1029 (2008)
LAB REPORTS
Melendez-Diaz v. Mass
DRUG LAB REPORT TESTIMONIAL
Justice Scalia
129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009)
MELENDEZ-DIAZMajority
Certified lab reports = testimonial statements
There are no neutral witnesses against accused
Notice and Demand – O.K? Defendants must assert rts.
Majority
Certified lab reports = testimonial statements
There are no neutral witnesses against accused
Notice and Demand – O.K? Defendants must assert rts.
MELENDEZ-DIAZ
Minority – (Kennedy)
Concerned about autopsies
Concerned about availability of witnesses
Analysts are neutral and not at scene.
Minority – (Kennedy)
Concerned about autopsies
Concerned about availability of witnesses
Analysts are neutral and not at scene.
MELENDEZ-DIAZ
Note 2 Majority:
“ Other [cases cited by the dissent] are irrelevant since they involved medical reports created for treatment purposes which would not be testimonial under our decision today.”
Note 2 Majority:
“ Other [cases cited by the dissent] are irrelevant since they involved medical reports created for treatment purposes which would not be testimonial under our decision today.”
Bullcoming v. New Mexico 2011
Bullcoming v. New Mexico 2011
Facts
DUI Lab test
Analyst issued certified report
Analyst put on unpaid leave
Supervisor testified about general practices of lab/testing
Facts
DUI Lab test
Analyst issued certified report
Analyst put on unpaid leave
Supervisor testified about general practices of lab/testing
Bullcoming v. New Mexico 2011
“A document created solely for an evidentiary purpose…made in aid of a police investigation, ranks as testimonial.”
“A document created solely for an evidentiary purpose…made in aid of a police investigation, ranks as testimonial.”
Bullcoming
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
Analyst – Defendant had a 6th Amendment right to cross analyst
Testing – Not simple. Subject to human error at each step
Surrogate- Witness did not observe test.
Justice Ginsburg
131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011)
Questions
1. Tests used by experts – Xrays, MRI, Lab See Melendez-Diaz, n.2
2. Autopsies- Doctor who did not perform tests
3. Chain of custody- foundation
4. Certificate of No Record- room for human error?
Witness ScreenedWitness Screened
Defendant Screened from Witness
Coy v. Iowa (1988)Placing screen between defendant and victim violated the defendant’s 6th Amendment right to confrontation.
Justice Scalia
Defendant Screened from Witness
Maryland v. Craig (1990)Closed circuit testimony by
victim permissible where:
(1) Necessary to further important public policy; and (2) reliability assured.
Who dissented?Justice O’Connor
Defendant Screened from Witness
Crawford v. Washington
Confrontation is a specific means of testing reliability.
Abandoned reliability as to testimonial hearsay.
Justice Scalia
124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004)
2-Way Video Not Enough
U.S. v. BordeauxChild’s testimony via 2-way video was “virtual” and violated 6th Amendment because may have diluted truth inducing effect. Thus, admission of prior interview violated Confrontation Clause
Judge Arnold
(8th Cir. 2005)
Forensic Interviews
Forensic interviews subject to both hearsay and Confrontation objectionsClearly testimonial, Coronado v. State, 351 S.W.3d
315 (CCA 2011)
Conflict with statutes that allow for admission of videotaped statements or alternative procedures if child witness is deemed unavailableReasons: emotional, mental, competency
38.071 After Crawford
Rangel v. State, 250 S.W.3d 96 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) Court admitted forensic video over Confrontation objection CCA held issue not preserved because defense counsel did
not avail himself of the interrogatory procedure
Unresolved questions after Rangel: What manner and means of cross will satisfy confrontation
right? What steps defendant must take to preserve error
The Answer: Coronado v. State, 351 S.W.3d 315 38.071 held unconstitutional – interrogatories not sufficient
cross-examination
Coronado v. State, 351 S.W.3d 315
Court of Criminal Appeals (Cochran, J.)
“Although we agree that there must be balance between a defendant's right to confrontation and a societal need to protect fragile and traumatized child victims, that balance cannot constitutionally be struck by the method set out in Section 2 of Article 38.071. On federal constitutional matters, we are obliged to follow the dictates of the United States Supreme Court regardless of our own notions.”