تطور الحق في الإدلاء بالشهادة في التعديل السادس

Crawford v. Washington (2004): A Paradigm Shift

In ]Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court upended the Roberts framework and restored a more originalist interpretation of the Confrontation Clause. The case involved Michael Crawquford, who was charged with assault and attempted murder. During his trial, the prosecution played a video-recorded statement of

وقد رفض القاضي سكاليا، وهو من يبدي رأيه، اختبار الموثوقية المفاجئ لروبرتس، وأعلن أن " الحاجز " ، وأن هيئة المحلفين قد رفضت أثناء المحاكمة، وأن الشيء الرئيسي هو الإدلاء بشهادتين جديدتين، وأمثلة على مدى الحياة، وأن الموثوقية هي طريقة " غير قابلة للتداول " ، وإذا لم تكن ذاتية تماما، فإن قرار " كروفورد " يتطلب من المحاكم أن تركز على ما إذا كان " .

ما بعد كروفورد: تحديد بيانات الإدلاء بالشهادة

وأنشأت آثار كروفورد صناعة تقاضي على ما يشكل بالضبط " حُكمة " ؛ وبياناً، وتناولت المحكمة هذه المسألة في عدة قضايا لاحقة:

• Davis v. Washington (2006):] The Court distinction between statements made during a police interrogation that are testimonial (i.e., primarily to establish past events for prosecution) and those that are nontestisideial (i.e., made to enable police to meet an ongoing emergency reported).
• Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts] (2009):]] The Court held that forensic laboratory reports identifying cocaine as contraband are testimonial statements. The analysts who prepared the reports must testify at trial unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine debate.
• Bullcoming v. New Mexico] (2011):] The Court extended Melendez-Diaz, holding that when a forensic analyst reports a blood-alcohol test result, the prosecution cannot substitute another analyst to testify about the report if the actual analyst prior had testimony
• Williams v. Illinois (2012):] A fractured Court provided no majority opinion on whether statements by a laboratory analyst in a DNA report were testimonial. The plurality, in an opinion by Justice Alito, found that such basis testifying as the

الاستثناءات والحدود المفروضة على المواجهة

وقد اعترفت المحكمة العليا بأن نظام المواجهة، رغم قوته، ليس بدون حدود، بل إنه حتى في إطار كراوفورد، فإن بعض الاستثناءات الراسخة من السمع تظل قائمة لأنها لا تعتبر شهادة في طبيعتها، وتشمل هذه الاستثناءات ما يلي:

• Dying Declarations:] statements made under a belief of imminent death are admissible, even if testimonial, because of their historical pedigree. The Crawford majority explicitly noted that dying declarations were an exception at common law and thus likely survive the Clause.
• Forfeiture by Wrongdoing:] If a defendant purchases the unavailability of a witness through wrongdoing - such as intimidation, murder, or coercion - the defendant forfeits his confrontation rights. In Giles v. California (2008)
• Business and Public Records (Nontestimonial):] Routine records kept for administrative purposes, such as 911 call logs or hospital intake forms, are generally considered nontestimonial because their primary purpose is not to create evidence for prosecution. However, records made specifically for litigation, such as police incident reports, may be testimonial.