Also known as: confrontation clause · Sixth Amendment confrontation right · Confrontation Clause · 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sean Steele faces criminal fraud charges. The prosecutor offers a sworn deposition transcript taken from Carla in an earlier civil suit to which Sean was not a party. Carla now lives abroad and will not return. Sean never had any opportunity to question her about the statements.
Stella Shapiro calls 911 while her assailant is still inside the apartment. She describes the ongoing attack in response to the dispatcher’s questions aimed at sending immediate help. The recording is offered at trial after the assailant flees. The statements were made to address an active threat rather than to document past events for prosecution.
Samuel Soto is tried for robbery. The key prosecution witness is on probation from a juvenile adjudication. Defense counsel seeks to cross-examine the witness about the adjudication to show possible bias. The trial court bars the inquiry under ordinary evidence rules.
Sabrina Shah is prosecuted for drug possession. The state offers a laboratory report identifying the substance as cocaine. The analyst who performed the testing does not testify. Another technician who did not conduct the analysis is called instead.
Simone Sanders is charged with child abuse. The child told teachers that Simone caused the injuries during an interview focused on the child’s immediate safety. The teachers’ testimony recounting the identification is offered at trial. The child is unavailable to testify.
Skylar Sullivan stands trial for sexual assault. A state analyst testifies that a DNA profile from an outside laboratory matches a sample from Skylar. The outside report itself is not admitted into evidence. The state analyst explains the basis for her own opinion without offering the report for its truth.
The clause bars testimonial hearsay unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Both conditions must be satisfied. Unavailability alone is insufficient.
Supporting sources
Statements are nontestimonial when made during an ongoing emergency to enable police assistance. They are testimonial when their primary purpose is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to criminal prosecution.
…Court of Appeals reversed. The State Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, concluding that the statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause because it bore “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Held: The State’s use of petitioner’s wife’s statement violated the Confrontation Clause because, where testimonial…
…Supreme Court reversed the latter conviction, holding that, although the affidavit was testimonial and thus subject to the Confrontation Clause, its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Held: The statements in No. 05–5224 were not testimonial, and the trial court properly admitted them. The statements in No. 05–5705…
…guilt, admission of Evans’ confession in this joint trial violated petitioner’s right of cross-examination secured by the Confrontation Clause
…irrelevant for present purposes and factually incorrect. As to legal relevance, the question before us is whether petitioner’s Sixth Amendment confrontation right was violated, not whether the State offered sufficient foundational evidence to support the admission of Lambatos’ opinion about the DNA match. In order to prove these underlying facts, the…
…right to represent himself in a criminal trial. For example, in Snyder v. Massachusetts , 291 U. S. 97, the Court held that the
Supporting sources
Forensic laboratory reports prepared for criminal prosecution are testimonial. Admission without testimony from the analyst who prepared the report violates the clause because the analyst is a witness the defendant has the right to confront.
Supporting sources
In a criminal case the Confrontation Clause can require admission of a witness’s juvenile record when the evidence is necessary to show bias and the defendant’s guilt or innocence turns on the witness’s credibility.
Supporting sources
Statements made by a child abuse victim to teachers identifying the abuser are nontestimonial when their primary purpose is to address an ongoing emergency and protect the child rather than to create evidence for prosecution.
Supporting sources