8 - Constitutional Limitations

Question 1

In what two ways has hearsay evidence been challenged on constitutional grounds?

Answer 1

1. Sixth Amendment - Confrontation Clause and Hearsay Evidence
2. Fourteenth Amendment - Due Process Clause

Question 2

What are the two categories of constitutional limitations in evidence?

Answer 2

1. Hearsay

2. Face-to-face Confrontation

Question 3

What does the Confrontation Clause require to admit an out-of-court testimonial statement of a declarant (i.e., hearsay) against a defendant? (2) What case? In what kind of trial?

Answer 3

In a criminal trial, the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment requires that, in order to admit an out-ot-court testimonial statement of a declarant (i.e., hearsay) against a defendant:
i) The declarant must be unavailable; and
ii) The defendant must have had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

Question 4

What about “testimonial statements”? When is a statement testimonial or not? What case?

Answer 4

A statement made during a police interrogation that had the primary purpose of ascertaining past criminal conduct is testimonial. By contrast, a statement made to police during the course of questioning with primary purpose of enabling
police to provide assistance to meet an ongoing emergency (e.g., a 911 call) is not testimonial.

Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006).

Question 5

What about “unavailability of declarant” under “Sixth Amendment - Confrontation Clause and Hearsay Evidence”? When does a defendant forfeit by wrongdoing? What case? What’s another way to admit such a statement, where the witness if unavailable because of death?

Answer 5

The Confrontation Clause mandates that use of hearsay evidence based on the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception requires the defendant to have acted with the particular purpose of making the witness unavailable. The mere fact that the declarant is unavailable due to the defendant’s act (e.g., murder of the witness) is not sufficient to establish such a purpose when the defendant is on trial for the act that made the witness unavailable.

GIles v. California, 2008.

A witness’s hearsay exception may be admissible under the dying declaration exception.

Question 6

What about the “fourteenth amendment - due process clause” under “hearsay evidence restrictions”? What must a hearsay rule deny in order to be unusable under this argument? What case?

Answer 6

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may deny application of a hearsay rule when such rule denies the defendant the ability to present witnesses in
the defendant’s own defense.

Chamber v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973).

Question 7

What about “face-to-face confrontation”? When can this preference be reversed?

Answer 7

The Confrontation Clause reflects a preference for face-to-face confrontation of a defendant and a witness in court.

A defendant who is charged with committing a sex crime against a child can force the child victim to testify in open court rather than from behind a screen that blocks the witness’s view of the defendant. Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988).

This type of confrontation may be denied, however, if there is an important public interest
at stake, such as protecting a child.
Example: A child victim of a sex crime could testify via a one-way dosed circuit television when there was specific finding that the child witness would suffer serious emotional distress if the witness was required to testify in open court. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990). The Court in Coy. above, refused to recognize a presumption of trauma to witnesses who were victims of sexual abuse.