•  
  •  
 

Authors

Andrew Dylan

Abstract

In Davis v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified its newly minted approach to the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, set out just two years earlier in Crawford v. Washington. While Davis provides some guidance to the lower courts in their attempts to separate “testimonial” from “nontestimonial” statements--the hinge on which confrontation jurisprudence now swings--it falls short of offering a bright-line rule. In fact, Davis may be construed as endorsing not one but three tests for determining whether a statement is testimonial, prompting confusion and inconsistency in the lower courts. This Note attempts to sort through the alternatives in an effort to effect a stable and uniform confrontation jurisprudence.

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS