Crawford Panel to Consider 'Enormous' Impact of Supreme Court Decision on Testimony
October 21, 2004
Contact: University Relations
Phone: 410.837.6190
A panel discussion on the impact of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v.Washington—a 2004 case that seemingly reaffirms a defendant’s basic right to confront his or her accuser—will be hosted by the University of Baltimore School of Law on Wednesday, Nov. 3 from noon to 1:30 p.m. “What Hath Crawford Wrought?: A Discussion on the Effect of Crawford v. Washington on Confrontation Clause Questions,” represents the first annual Stephen L. Snyder Center for Litigation Skills Symposium on Criminal Practice. It is free and open to the public and will be held in Poe’s Publick House on the lower level of the School of Law, 1420 N. Charles St. Reservations are required.
Lead symposium organizer Lynn McLain, professor and Dean Joseph Curtis Faculty Fellow at the School of Law, said that last fall’s Crawford decision represents a major turning point for the nation’s doctrine in criminal law—while simultaneously leaving unsettled dozens of important questions about the conduct of its courts, especially in criminal matters.
“Crawford held that when out-of-court statements are considered ‘testimonial,’ they cannot be entered against the accused unless the accused (1) has an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant at trial, or (2) has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant concerning the statement and the declarant is unavailable to testify at trial, or (3) has forfeited or waived his or her confrontation right,” McLain said. “The Court held that someone else’s jailhouse confession, made to police during interrogation and implicating the defendant, as well, is ‘testimonial.’ That holding is of enormous potential impact in all criminal trials, especially domestic violence and child abuse prosecutions, depending upon how broadly the lower courts construe Crawford, and on how the Supreme Court elucidates its thinking in future cases.”
However, McLain noted, the Supreme Court did not specifically define “testimonial,” and it did not categorically address the kinds of statements that law enforcement and prosecutors often rely on in presenting cases—911 call records, statements at the crime scene to responding police officers, statements by children, police lab reports, and a host of other kinds of evidence that have been previously admissible in evidence if found to be reliable.
“Crawford left a lot unresolved,” McLain said. “It has thrown our legal system into a state of uncertainty and it will probably take at least five to 10 years to see how it shakes out.”
The Court of Appeals of Maryland will hear argument on this issue in a child abuse case, State v. Snowden, on December 3.
The panel discussion will raise these points and others in the 90-minute discussion. Panelists include the following:
José Anderson, professor in the School of Law and director of the Stephen L. Snyder Center for Litigation Skills
Ann Bosse, senior counsel for federal habeas corpus litigation, Office of the Attorney General for Maryland
John Cox, chief of Violent Crimes Division, and former chief of the Child Abuse/Sex Offender Division, Baltimore County State’s Attorney’s Office
Stephen Harris, Snyder Center Distinguished Attorney in Residence, and fromer Public Defender for the State of Maryland
Byron Warnken, professor in the School of Law
Professor Anderson will serve as moderator. Reservations may be made by contacting Barbara Jones, 410.837.4635 or bjones@ubalt.edu
The University of Baltimore is an upper-division, graduate and professional university. UB—the state’s career-minded university—is a member of the University System of Maryland and comprises the School of Law, the Yale Gordon College of Liberal Arts and the Merrick School of Business.