The Supreme Court made it harder Monday for prosecutors and police to use out-of-court statements against a criminal defendant at his trial.
In a 7-2 opinion, the justices said the Constitution gives defendants a right to confront their accusers in court, a right that cannot be whittled away by allowing statements whenever a witness is unavailable.
The ruling overturns the assault conviction of a Washington state man who was found guilty after the jury heard a statement his wife had given to police. The defendant, Michael Crawford, said his wife’s out-of-court statement should have been barred.
Monday’s opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, relying on the original meaning of the Constitution. He cited the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, who was convicted of treason in England in 1603 based on a statement given to one of the king’s men. Raleigh’s request to face his accuser at trial was denied.
Later, American authors of the Constitution gave defendants a right to confront their accusers.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” the 6th Amendment says.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has long permitted courtroom use of statements by witnesses who have died, fled or refused to testify. These are known as “hearsay exceptions,” and until Monday, the court’s rule allowed the use of statements that were seen as reliable evidence. For example, a witness’ tape-recorded statement to police would be seen as reliable and probably could be introduced as evidence if that witness were unavailable to testify.
But Scalia’s opinion sets a high bar for the use of out-of-court statements at trial.
“The framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witnesses,” he wrote. “The text of the 6th Amendment does not suggest any open-ended exceptions from the confrontation requirement.”
The issue of out-of-court statements also has arisen in cases involving abuse of children. The courts have been divided over whether prosecutors should be allowed to use a child’s statement to a counselor or police.
Several lawyers who had read Monday’s opinion said they were not sure whether it would have a broad impact.
“It opens a fairly substantial question as to what is a testimonial statement,” said Kent Scheidegger, a lawyer for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif.
But Jeffrey Fisher, the Seattle lawyer who represented Crawford, described the outcome as a “landmark decision” involving the right to confront accusers.
While all nine justices agreed that Crawford’s conviction should be overturned, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor disagreed with Scalia’s opinion.
“I believe [it] is a mistaken change of course,” the chief justice said, predicting it would lead to confusion. “Thousands of federal prosecutors and tens of thousands of state prosecutors need answers as to what … is covered by the new rule.”
Also on Monday, the court
– Refused to hear an appeal from the Boy Scouts over what the organization claims is discrimination because of its policy against hiring homosexuals. Connecticut officials dropped the group from a list of charities that receive donations through a state employee payroll deduction plan.
– Ruled 9-0 that although people pleading guilty to crimes are entitled to a lawyer, judges don’t have to warn them of the disadvantages of not seeing a lawyer.
