Also known as: confrontation clause · right to confrontation · Sixth Amendment confrontation right · 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.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Serena Soto faces trial for assault. Police took a detailed statement from the victim describing the attack after the incident ended. The prosecution offers the statement at trial without calling the victim. The court excludes the statement because Serena had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
Simon Stern is charged with domestic violence. His partner called 911 while the altercation was still occurring and described the ongoing attack. The prosecution offers the recording at trial. The court admits the statements because they were made to enable police assistance during an emergency.
Sarah Sullivan testifies against Sofia Stern in a theft prosecution. Sofia seeks to cross-examine Sarah about her juvenile adjudication and current probation status to show bias. The court permits the inquiry because it is necessary to test credibility and the defendant's guilt or innocence turns on the witness's testimony.
Samantha Stone is prosecuted for drug possession. The state offers a forensic lab report identifying the substance without calling the analyst who prepared it. The court excludes the report because the analyst is a witness the defendant has the right to confront through cross-examination.
Sophia Singh is charged with child abuse. The child told teachers that Sophia caused the injuries during an ongoing safety concern. The prosecution offers the statements at trial. The court admits them because their primary purpose was to protect the child rather than to create evidence for prosecution.
Skyline Construction's employee faces criminal charges involving DNA evidence. An expert testifies to her own opinion after reviewing a DNA profile prepared by a non-testifying lab. The court admits the testimony because the profile was not offered for its truth and was not prepared to accuse a targeted individual.
Statements are testimonial when their primary purpose is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to criminal prosecution. Statements made during an ongoing emergency to enable police assistance are nontestimonial and admissible without confrontation.
Supporting sources
Forensic laboratory reports prepared for use in criminal prosecution are testimonial statements. Their admission without testimony from the analyst who prepared them violates the Confrontation Clause because the analysts are witnesses the defendant has the right to confront.
…Crown deployed in notorious treason cases like Raleigh's; that the Marian statutes invited; that English law's assertion of a right to confrontation was meant to prohibit; and that the founding-era rhetoric decried. The Sixth Amendment must be interpreted with this focus in mind. Accordingly, we once again reject the view that the…
…its "core," but its perimeter. We are not aware of any early American case invoking the Confrontation Clause or the common-law right to confrontation
…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…
…See, e.g., Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 795 (1969) (Double Jeopardy Clause); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 406 (1965) (
Supporting sources
The Confrontation Clause can require that a criminal 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
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
An expert witness's reliance on a DNA profile produced by a non-testifying laboratory does not violate the Confrontation Clause where the report is not admitted for its truth but to explain the basis of the expert's opinion and was not prepared primarily to accuse a targeted individual.
Supporting sources