Crawford v. Washington (2004)
Crawford v. Washington (2004): The Right to Confront Accusers in Texas Criminal Trials
Testimonial statements cannot be used unless the witness testifies at trial or was previously cross-examined.
Background
Michael Crawford was charged with assault and claimed self-defense. His wife made statements to police implicating him, but spousal privilege prevented her from testifying at trial. The prosecution introduced her recorded interview instead. Crawford argued that admitting those statements without cross-examination violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
Questions Presented
- May testimonial statements be admitted without the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the declarant?
- What qualifies as “testimonial” for Confrontation Clause purposes?
Majority Opinion — Justice Antonin Scalia
Holding: Testimonial hearsay is inadmissible unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Scalia rejected the more flexible “reliability” framework of earlier cases, instead grounding the rule in history: the Framers distrusted ex parte statements. Cross-examination is the constitutional method for testing credibility — courts may not substitute their judgment about reliability.
Crawford reshaped evidence law in Texas. Statements to police, forensic reports, affidavits, and certain emergency calls often qualify as testimonial. Montgomery County defense attorneys now challenge prosecution attempts to introduce such statements without live testimony.
When the State relies on out-of-court allegations — such as in assault family violence, sexual assault, or intoxication offenses — Crawford is often the key to excluding critical evidence and protecting the right to confront your accuser face-to-face in court.