What does Crawford v. Washington say about the admissibility of testimonial out-of-court statements?

What does Crawford v. Washington say about the admissibility of testimonial out-of-court statements?

• A. The rule says hearsay allowed freely
• B. Testimonial out-of-court statements are only admissible if the declarant is available for cross-examination or there was a prior opportunity to cross
• C. Only applies to civil cases
• D. Allows police reports as is

Answer: (B)

Confrontation Clause protections require that testimonial out-of-court statements used to prove the truth of the matter must be subject to cross-examination. Crawford v. Washington holds that such statements are admissible only if the declarant either testifies at trial (so they can be cross-examined) or there was a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant before trial. In short, if the declarant is not available for cross-examination and there isn’t a prior cross-examination opportunity, the statement cannot be used to prove the asserted facts. This distinction helps explain why the chosen option is correct: it captures the requirement that cross-examination must be possible for testimonial statements, unlike purely non-testimonial statements or other hearsay.

Confrontation Clause protections require that testimonial out-of-court statements used to prove the truth of the matter must be subject to cross-examination. Crawford v. Washington holds that such statements are admissible only if the declarant either testifies at trial (so they can be cross-examined) or there was a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant before trial. In short, if the declarant is not available for cross-examination and there isn’t a prior cross-examination opportunity, the statement cannot be used to prove the asserted facts. This distinction helps explain why the chosen option is correct: it captures the requirement that cross-examination must be possible for testimonial statements, unlike purely non-testimonial statements or other hearsay.