CRAWFORD v WASHINGTON

The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT has just changed the criminal rules of evidence as they pertain to hearsay.  For the last forty years, criminal courts had been allowing juries to hear more and more "hearsay" .  That is, the judges have been allowing witnesses to testify as to what other people have told them, even though the witness has no personal knowledge. 

An example would be if I were allowed to testify that Joe said he saw the defendant Susan steel the car.  I don't know if Joe is telling the truth or not.  Maybe the thief looked like Susan and/or maybe Joe wasn't wearing his glasses.  Since I wasn't there, I don't know the circumstances as to why Joe said Susan stole the vehicle.  If a judge allowed me to testify as to what another person told me, that would be "hearsay".

The primary problem with "hearsay" is that an accused cannot meaningfully question the testimony.  This is called "confrontation" and everyone accused of a crime has a right to confront or question the accuser.  In my example above, Joe is the accuser.  I didn't see anything.  All I'm doing is repeating what the accuser said. 

In my example above, the defendant Susan should be able to question Joe whether he had his glasses on, whether he was drinking or otherwise on drugs, whether he was one block away or 10 blocks away when the vehicle was stolen.  This is why as a general rule hearsay is inadmissible.

Despite the rule, judges had been allowing juries to hear more and more "hearsay" to aide in deciding whether an accused should be found guilty.  This has now changes under CRAWFORD.

If an out of court statement is "testimonial", that is the statement tends to place blame for the crime on a defendant, then it cannot be introduce through anyone else except the person who actually made the observations.  This is true of children as well as adults.  The CRAWFORD rule is designed to provide an objectively fair procedure to determine guilt.  And "confrontation" is the mainframe of the fairness.