A Call For Change The Detrimental Impacts Of Crawford V Washington

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Crawford v. Washington that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible at trial unless the declarant is available for cross-examination. Courts have subsequently struggled to define “testimonial hearsay,” but have often vaguely defined it as an out-of-court statement made for the primary purpose of establishing past events for use in future prosecution. Although Crawford intended to protect a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, in doing so, it overlooked the holding’s detrimental effects on two particular types of victims: domestic violence and rape victims. Under Crawford, domestic violence and rape victims’ out-of-court statements are likely to be considered testimonial because the sensitive and personal nature of these incidents often results in substantial deliberation prior to any declaration, as opposed to the impromptu declarations made during so-called ongoing emergencies. In turn, these statements are likely viewed as made for future prosecution. Moreover, domestic violence and rape victims have especially compelling and uniquely fragile psychological reasons to be unavailable for cross-examination, including being at risk at for re-traumatization. Yet, despite these reasons, Crawford still places pressure on these victims to be cross-examined in front of their perpetrators because testimonial hearsay evidence is often determinative in these types of trials, and thus an unavailable victim would lead to an increased likelihood of the perpetrator escaping conviction. This sensitivity and consequential unreliability surrounding the admissibility of testimonial hearsay upon which domestic violence and rape cases rely also disincentives prosecutors from pursuing these cases, further exacerbating the unlikelihood of conviction. To alleviate the detrimental impacts that Crawford has on both victims and trials, this Article suggests that Crawford’s essential terminology must be narrowly defined, exceptions to the ruling must be expanded upon, and victims must be adequately safeguarded.

The recent explosion of research and practice relating to offending and the related investigative and legal processes makes it extremely difficult for anyone to master these emerging areas of research. This book will help readers to navigate through this rapidly expanding area of scholarship and practice by bringing together a number of recent reviews on key topics by leading experts in the field. Contributions to the volume discuss developments in the study of interviewing and the detection of deception together with explorations of victims and offenders. The psychological background and consequences of school bullying, child sexual abuse and male rape are also explored, as are the challenges of collecting information about crimes as varied as burglary and serial killing. This book will be a valuable resource for criminologists, crime and forensic psychologists, students of socio-legal processes and all those involved in legal and investigative activities. The chapters in this book were originally published as review articles in Crime Psychology Review.

Through a detailed analysis that draws on work across philosophy, the law, and social psychology, Criminal Testimonial Injustice shows that, from the very beginning of the American criminal legal process in interrogation rooms to its final stages in front of parole boards, testimony is extracted from individuals through processes that are coercive, manipulative, or deceptive. This testimony is then unreasonably regarded as representing the testifiers' truest or most reliable selves. With chapters ranging from false confessions and eyewitness misidentifications to recantations from victims of sexual violence and expressions of remorse from innocent defendants at sentencing hearings, it is argued that there is a distinctive epistemic wrong being perpetrated against suspects, defendants, witnesses, and victims. This wrong involves brute State power targeting the epistemic agency of its citizens, extracting false testimony that is often life-shattering, and rendering the victims in question complicit in their own undoing. It is concluded that it is only through understanding what it means to respect the epistemic agency of each participant in the criminal legal system that we can truly grasp what justice demands and, in so doing, to reimagine what is possible.

This edition continues to address the basic questions surrounding domestic violence. Virtually all chapters have been rewritten, and material has been added on changes in prosecution criteria and on different methods to protect the victim.

Brilliant. Colorful. Visionary. Tenacious. Witty. Since his appointment to the Supreme Court in 1986, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has been described as all of these things and for good reason. He is perhaps the best-known justice on the Supreme Court today and certainly the most controversial. Yet most Americans have probably not read even one of his several hundred Supreme Court opinions. In Scalia Dissents, Kevin Ring, former counsel to the U.S. Senate's Constitution Subcommittee, lets Justice Scalia speak for himself. This volume—the first of its kind— showcases the quotable justice's take on many of today's most contentious constitutional debates. Scalia Dissentscontains over a dozen of the justice's most compelling and controversial opinions. Ring also provides helpful background on the opinions and a primer on Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy. Scalia Dissents is the perfect book for readers who love scintillating prose and penetrating insight on the most important constitutional issues of our time.