Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

July 21, 2006

Is a 911 call admissible evidence?  We talked about Crawford v. Washington earlier this week; that's the US Supreme Court decision which held that testimonial statements against an accused could only be be admitted if the defendant had an actual opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, at trial or otherwise.  Left undecided by Crawford was exactly what constituted a "testimonial" statement.  Is a 911 call "testimonial"?  How about an excited utterance?

The first question was resolved somewhat last month in Davis v. Washingtonwhere the Court laid down a test for determining whether a 911 call was testimonial.  Basically, the statements are nontestimonial if their primary purpose is to obtain police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They're testimonial when there's no such emergency, and the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.

Keep in mind that a single call can have elements of both.  If, for example, a wife calls 911 to report a domestic violence, the husband leaves during the call, and the operator keeps the wife on the phone to get details of what happened, the latter part will probably fall under Crawford.  (This isn't my scenario; it's one given in Davis.)

It's hard to argue that this doesn't represent somewhat of a retreat from Crawford's definition of what constitutes a testimonial statement:  "statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial."

And it might not be unreasonable to suggest that Crawford isn't quite as sweeping as the defense bar initially thought.  There are an awful lot of holes in it.  If the witness testifies at trial, all the prior statements come in, even if the witness can't remember or won't testify about them; opportunity to cross-examine is all that's required.  Keep in mind the opportunity doesn't need to arise at trial.  For example, if there's a hearing on a temporary restraining order in a DV case, you're going to be stuck with the complainant's prior statements if she shows up at the hearing, even if she doesn't say a peep:  you had the opportunity to cross-examine her.  Statements by children of alleged abuse, to parents or medical personnel, are almost surely still going to come in under the hearsay exceptions for "excited utterances" or "statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment," since it seems fairly clear from Davis that only statements to police are going to be deemed "testimonial."

That's not to suggest that Crawford is meaningless, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's one of those decisions that five years down the road are going to whittled into something less than they initially seemed.

Search

Recent Entries

  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions
  • August 7, 2017
    Two on allied offenses
    A look at the 8th District's latest decisions on allied offenses
  • August 3, 2017
    Thursday Ruminations
    Computerized sentencing, lawyer ads, and songs from the past
  • August 1, 2017
    8th District Roundup
    One thing that doing this blog has taught me is how much the law changes. The US Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington and Crawford v. Washington have dramatically altered the right to jury trial and confrontation, respectively. The...
  • July 28, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    The better part of discretion
  • July 26, 2017
    Supreme Court Recap - 2016 Term
    My annual review of the Supreme Court decisions from the past term
  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture