562 U.S. 244 (2010)
Roughly 25 minutes after Anthony Covington had been shot, Detroit police responded to a 911 call reporting that a gunshot victim had appeared at a neighborhood gas station. They quickly arrived at the scene, and in less than 10 minutes five different Detroit police officers questioned Covington about the shooting.1
Each asked him a similar battery of questions: what happened and when, who shot the victim, and where did the shooting take place.2 After Covington would answer, they would ask followup questions, such as how tall is the shooter, how much does he weigh, what is the exact address or physical description of the house where the shooting took place, and what chain of events led to the shooting.3 The battery relented when the paramedics arrived and began tending to Covington's wounds.4
Covington knew the threatening situation had ended six blocks away and 25 minutes earlier when he fled from Bryant's back porch. Bryant had not confronted him face to face before he was mortally wounded, instead shooting him through a door.5 Covington knew the shooting was the work of a drug dealer, not a spree killer who might randomly threaten others.6
Covington interrupted their interrogation to ask when is EMS coming.7 Sergeant Wenturine admitted that he interrogated Covington because he had a man here that he believed was dying so he was gonna find out who did this, period.8
The fifth officer to arrive at the scene did not need to run straight to Covington and ask a battery of questions to determine the need for emergency assistance.9 The value of asking the same battery of questions a fifth time was to ensure that Covington told a consistent story and to see if any new details helpful to the investigation and eventual prosecution would emerge.10 Bryant was convicted after the first jury could not reach a verdict.11 The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.12
Whether Anthony Covington's out-of-court statements to Detroit police officers were testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes?13
Under the Confrontation Clause as interpreted in Crawford and Davis, a statement is testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.14 This is rather than to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.
No. The established facts show that roughly 25 minutes after the shooting Detroit police responded to a 911 call at the gas station and five officers questioned Covington for less than 10 minutes using a battery of questions about what happened, who shot him, where the shooting occurred, the shooter's height and weight, the address of the house, and the chain of events, with the questioning ending only when paramedics arrived.15 Although Covington had fled from Bryant's back porch six blocks away, knew the shooter was a drug dealer, interrupted to ask when EMS was coming, and Sergeant Wenturine admitted he questioned Covington to find out who did it because he believed the victim was dying, the primary purpose under the totality of circumstances was to address the ongoing emergency created by an armed shooter whose motive and location remained unknown at the time of the interrogation.16
Covington's out-of-court statements were not testimonial, and therefore their admission at trial did not violate the Confrontation Clause.17
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment on the separate ground that Covington's statements were not testimonial because they lacked sufficient formality and solemnity.18 He agreed with the Court that the admission of Covington's out-of-court statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause.19 Thomas reached this conclusion because Covington's questioning by police lacked sufficient formality and solemnity for his statements to be considered testimonial.20
He emphasized that the interrogation occurred in a highly informal setting while Covington bled from a fatal wound.21 The police questioning was not a formalized dialogue and did not result in formalized testimonial materials such as a deposition or affidavit.22 It bore no indicia of solemnity resembling the historical practices the Confrontation Clause was designed to address.23
Justice Scalia dissented on the ground that the statements were testimonial when viewed from the declarant's perspective.24 He stated that the declarant's intent is what counts.25 Scalia reasoned that Covington knew the threatening situation had ended six blocks away and 25 minutes earlier when he fled from Bryant's back porch.
Covington understood he was protected by five armed officers.26 He responded to structured questioning that resembled direct examination aimed at investigating a past crime rather than addressing an immediate emergency.27 From Covington's perspective his statements had little value except to ensure the arrest and eventual prosecution of Richard Bryant.28
Justice Ginsburg dissented and joined Justice Scalia's view that the declarant's intent controls and that Covington's statements were testimonial.29 She agreed with Justice Scalia that Covington's statements were testimonial and that the declarant's intent is what counts.30 Ginsburg added that even under an interrogator-focused inquiry the officers treated the encounter as an investigation into a past crime with no ongoing or immediate consequences.31
Today's decision creates an expansive exception to the Confrontation Clause for violent crimes.32 She further agreed that reliability tells us nothing about whether a statement is testimonial.33