Also known as: confrontation right · right of confrontation · confrontation clause right · confrontation clause · sixth amendment confrontation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Sixth Amendment guarantee that in criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The guarantee bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. It ensures the fact-finder can observe demeanor and the defendant can test adverse testimony through live cross-examination.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Robert Rivera faces hacking charges. Police conducted a structured interview with a fired coworker at the station to build the case. The coworker later moved overseas and refused to appear. The recorded statements are excluded because they are testimonial and Robert had no prior chance to cross-examine the declarant.
Rowan Russell is tried for assault after leaping over a restaurant counter. An employee called 911 during the incident but continued giving a detailed account after Rowan fled. The post-flight statements are excluded because their primary purpose shifted to documenting past events for prosecution rather than addressing an ongoing emergency.
Ruby Rivera is prosecuted for theft. The key prosecution witness is on probation from a juvenile adjudication at the same store. The court permits cross-examination about the probation status to show bias even though juvenile records are ordinarily protected.
Ravi Reddy is charged with drug distribution. The prosecution offers a forensic report identifying the substance without calling the analyst who performed the testing. The report is excluded because it is testimonial and the analyst is a witness the defendant has the right to confront.
Rachel Ramirez is prosecuted for child abuse. The victim made statements to teachers identifying Rachel as the abuser while the teachers were addressing the child's immediate safety needs. The statements are admitted because their primary purpose was to protect the child rather than to create evidence for prosecution.
Raymond Ramos faces murder charges. An expert testifies to her own opinion after relying on a DNA profile generated by a non-testifying lab. The profile was produced for routine database purposes and is not offered for its truth. The expert's testimony is admitted because the underlying report was not introduced as substantive evidence.
A statement is testimonial when made under circumstances that would lead an objective witness to reasonably believe it would be available for use at a later trial. Formal police interrogations and structured interviews aimed at building a criminal case qualify. Statements made during an ongoing emergency to secure police assistance are nontestimonial.
Supporting sources
…with testimonial hearsay, that does not mean that it has no application to such statements. This Court has long held that the right of confrontation does not apply to out-of-court statements that are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The text of the Confrontation Clause reflects this focus. It applies to “witnesses”…
…who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not. The constitutional text, like the history underlying the common-law right of confrontation, thus reflects an especially acute concern with a particular type of out-of-court statement. Our opinion in Crawford described the class of testimonial statements covered by the…
…today, the right against compelled self-incrimination, the right to counsel, the
…Massachusetts , 291 U. S. 97 (1934), and Stein v. New York , 346 U. S. 156, 194 (1953), by holding that the Sixth Amendment
…by Arizona law. Quite apart from due process principles, we have held that a bar of this sort can be inconsistent with the Confrontation Clause. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673 (1986). In Van Arsdall the Court held a state court erred in making a ruling that “prohibited all inquiry into” an event. Id ., at 679. At…
Yes. Forensic laboratory reports prepared for criminal prosecution are testimonial statements. Admission without testimony from the analyst who prepared the report violates the Confrontation Clause because the analyst is a witness the defendant has the right to confront through cross-examination.
Supporting sources
Under the Williams plurality approach an expert may give an independent opinion that relies on a DNA profile prepared by a non-testifying lab when the profile is not admitted for its truth but only to explain the basis of the expert's opinion and was not prepared primarily to accuse a targeted individual.
Supporting sources
Admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession that directly implicates the defendant violates the Confrontation Clause even if the jury is instructed to consider the confession only against the confessing co-defendant.
Supporting sources
In criminal cases the Confrontation Clause can require that a defendant be permitted to cross-examine a prosecution witness about the witness's juvenile record or probation status when such examination is necessary to show bias or otherwise attack credibility.
Supporting sources