Also known as: confrontation right · Sixth Amendment confrontation right · confrontation clause · Confrontation Clause · 6th Amendment confrontation
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 guarantee bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Sydney Santos stands trial for assault. The prosecution offers a recorded police interview in which the victim described the attack after it ended. Santos never cross-examined the victim. The court excludes the recording because the statement is testimonial and Santos lacked any prior opportunity to confront the declarant.
Scott Summers dials 911 while his neighbor is still breaking windows and threatening violence inside the home. The dispatcher asks questions to guide responding officers. At trial the recording is admitted over Summers's objection because the statements were made to resolve an ongoing emergency rather than to document past events for prosecution.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Samantha Stone testifies for the prosecution. Defense counsel seeks to ask her about a recent juvenile adjudication and current probation status to show bias. The trial judge permits the questions because the information is necessary to test the witness's credibility and the Confrontation Clause overrides ordinary limits on juvenile records.
Sabrina Shah is prosecuted for drug possession. The state offers a forensic laboratory report identifying the substance without calling the analyst who performed the testing. The court excludes the report because the analyst's statements are testimonial and Shah has the right to cross-examine the person who prepared them.
Sylvia Santos tells her teachers that her stepfather caused recent bruises during an ongoing risk of further harm. The teachers relay the statements at trial. The court admits the statements because their primary purpose was to protect the child from an ongoing emergency rather than to create evidence for prosecution.
Sasha Stone is tried for sexual assault. An expert testifies about a DNA match after reviewing a profile generated by a non-testifying lab. The profile is not offered for its truth but only to explain the basis of the expert's opinion. The court permits the testimony because the report was not prepared to accuse a targeted individual.
The clause bars testimonial statements offered against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. A statement is testimonial when its primary purpose is to establish or prove past events for potential prosecution rather than to address an ongoing emergency.
Supporting sources
Yes. A sworn forensic report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is testimonial. Its admission without testimony from the analyst who performed the testing violates the Confrontation Clause because the analyst is a witness the defendant has the right to confront.
Supporting sources
The statement is admissible without confrontation when its primary purpose is to address an ongoing emergency and protect the child rather than to create evidence for prosecution. Courts examine the circumstances to determine whether the interaction was focused on immediate safety or on documenting past events.
Supporting sources
An expert may rely on the profile to explain the basis of an opinion if the report itself is not admitted for its truth and was not prepared primarily to accuse a targeted individual. The Confrontation Clause is not violated under those circumstances.
Supporting sources
…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…