home

Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statements

By Jeralyn, Section Constitution
Posted on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 09:27:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Supreme Court today ruled a domestic violence victim's responses to questions posed by a 911 operator are admissible at trial if the victim doesn't testify because they were made during the crime and for the purpose of assessing whether there was an emergency. As such, the Court ruled they were not "testimonial." Because they are not "testimonial", the defendant's 6th amendment right to confront witnesses does not preclude their admission. At least that's what I gleaned from a quick read of the opinion.

From the Supreme Court opinion (pdf):

Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.

Update: Howard Bashman has a complete rundown with links to all of today's opinions and see Scotus Blog for their excellent commentary.

< Al Qaeda Group Claims Capture of U.S. Soldiers | Air Torture >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statements | 14 comments (14 topical)
    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 10:22:02 AM EST
    Are there laws against lying to 911 operators? What laws would be violated by making a false accusation to 911? As a divorced father of two daughters, I am sensitive to both sides of this issue. In my case, my wife did call the police on one occasion over what had been a mutual case of shouting. The officers that arrived took me aside and said, "it's time to get out." But there never was a DV case made against me filed or in court (and during the marriage the only person that hit the other was her hitting me.) But that police report alone was enough for her first atty to try and obtain a TRO against me (that attempt failed) and two years later after she had moved out of state (Marriage of Burgess) was used by her in obtaining an ex-parte emergency order against me saying that a) I was dangerous and b) that I had abandoned the children. That separated me from my children for three months until her case that I had abandoned the children was tossed out when it finally came to a hearing and I had a chance to present my case (and receipts refuting her claims of abandonment.) So what penalties, what negative feedback is available to deter bogus statements to 911, and would it be heard in civil or criminal court?

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#2)
    by JK on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 10:42:39 AM EST
    Actually, on the whole, Davis/Hammon is a good decision for defendants. Lower courts unanimously have held that 911 calls are not testimonial. The Supreme Court held in Davis that, for the most part, 911 calls are not testimonial. But not all of them, so long as they meet the standard that Jeralyn has cited to above. Thus, this is better than the situation before. More important, the Court held in Hammon that, contrary to almost every single lower court that has addressed this issue, an on-the-scene statement to a police officer can be considered testimonial, once again, so long as it meets the standard mentioned in the post. Although this decision interprets testimonial statements broadly, the lower courts will do whatever they can to limit its reach, just like with the first decision in crawford (and, for that matter, like the courts have done with apprendi and blakely).

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 10:44:33 AM EST
    JPF - the short answer to your question is the one lawyers love to give: "it depends". As a rule, most jurisidictions have some provision against making false statements to authorities, but there are so many exceptions, nuances, and interpretations that it is impossible to make any generalization. And, making it more complicated, "What's false" is the big question and (particularly where there are fighting spouses) judges assume (usually correctly) that neither side is exactly accurate and that the truth lies somewhere in between. To be fair, it depends on a lot of things and any such allegation would involve a lot of facts specific to each case. There's just no way to give a one-size-fits-all answer.

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 11:57:59 AM EST
    9-11 was a setup job by people on the inside of this so called government, its a plan in the end game to take down the USA And make one big non nation of enslaved people who will work for nothing like Red China, its for the 3 percent of the worlds rich, and you will be living inside a hell on earth, by the way the deal is done.

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 12:52:57 PM EST
    TL: As I read the opinion, and speaking from a purely practical POV, it seems the line lies somewhere in here: that (a) the 911 call play-by-play of ongoing emergency, and elicitation of facts necessary to provide (proper) response to ongoing emergency - comes in as non-testimonial and (b) that after the immediate emergency comes to its end, further Q&A - more to get information needed to "Solve the crime" or whatever - is "Testimonial" and therefore stays out if the declarant is unavailable. So, to my eyes, questioning after/beyond that needed for initial response and quelling whatever emergency is going on is "testimonial" and therefore subject to exclusion if the Confrontation Clause cannot/is not met. If the allegedly criminal conduct is in the past such that there's no emergency (I suspect "how long is too long" will be handled like excited utterances), it's testimonial. I note that identification of the alleged assailant in the 911-call-during-assault was not "testimonial". I see elsewhere (SCOTUSBlog) that a lot seems to be being made of the possibility of "forfeiture" doctrine being left open for use to get otherwise-testimonial declarations in, when there's some allegation of intimidation or such. That's an unanswered question, though. Interesting how Scalia snarks off Thomas in footnote 5, though I wish he and the Supremes would not limit this quote's application to Sixth Amendment confrontation issues (which, because 90+% of cases are resolved on pleas, doesn't count for that much by comparison):
    "Restricting the Confrontation Clause to the precise forms against which is was orignally directed is a recipe for its extinction."
    The current case o'characters does exactly that (and worse) with the Fourth. And, viz. Part IV - didn't Scalia just last week bemoan giving lawbreakers a "get-out-of-jail-free card" when police crashed in without knocking in Hudson v. Michigan?

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 01:20:17 PM EST
    Jun 19, 3:23 PM EDT Top Court: Victims' Statements Admissible By TONI LOCY Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that statements made by crime victims to 911 operators or police during emergencies can be used in court even if those victims do not testify at trial. In a pair of cases, the justices gave a nod to the difficulties of prosecuting domestic violence cases. By a 9-0 vote, justices ruled that a Washington man's right to confront his accuser was not violated because he could not cross-examine his ex-girlfriend, who claimed in a 911 call that he had assaulted her. In another case, out of Indiana, the justices ruled 8-1 that a police officer had crossed the line - from dealing with an emergency to conducting an investigation - when he questioned a woman about what her husband had done to her well after she had been assaulted.
    So the gist of this seems to be the 6th Amendment gets in the way of some convictions, therefore it should be ignored in part. There also seems to be a little celebration on both sides. For the defense, the "after emergency" cross helps, though that means even more of the 6th was eroded already for it to be worthy of celebration; but for victim's rights, the 911 recording without cross is a God send. Every victim can find a good reason to get rid of different parts of the Bill of Rights. Is that what is going on? Let's take an extreme example. Say Susan Smith called 911 on her cell and claimed a black man car-jacked her car with her kids in it. They bust a black man nearby and he is accused of taking and drowning her kids. Now, for the sake of argument, say Susan Smith dies of a heart attack before trial. Or maybe see goes insane and can't testify, whatever. That would mean her 911 call would be evidence and the defense can't cross examine it. Did I get this right?

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 01:29:39 PM EST
    Sorry for the typos. Another question. And doesn't this mean the Duke AV might not need to testify?

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#8)
    by HK on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 03:01:30 PM EST
    JPF I am sorry to hear of your experience as it seems you were very unfairly treated and the situation was manipulated. But as far as the majority of domestic violence cases go, I think this ruling will be a good thing. In the UK, it has recently been decided that the Crown Prosectution Service can proceed with a DV case even if the victim drops the charges. Like this recent US ruling, this will positively impact in three ways: 1. There will be less pressure on the victim to go ahead with the charges and to confront their aggressor. This must be a frightening prospect for those who have a genuine complaint. 2. Less time, money and resources will be wasted because of victims deciding at some point down the line that they can't face a trial. 3. Those who are guilty of domestic violence will find it more difficult to evade justice because of the climate of fear that they have produced in their household. Any miscarriage of justice is a tragic thing, but I imagine that the vast majority of women who make complaints about domestic violence are beign truthful - and it will have taken either a lot of courage and/or sheer despair to lead them to making that call.

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 03:29:19 PM EST
    JPF I am sorry to hear of your experience as it seems you were very unfairly treated and the situation was manipulated. But as far as the majority of domestic violence cases go, I think this ruling will be a good thing. Yep, this statement is heard alot, almost always just before this statement Any miscarriage of justice is a tragic thing, but I imagine that the vast majority of women who make complaints about domestic violence are beign truthful In the meantime, some of remember some of those statements from days of yore. "Innocent until proven guilty". "Better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent go to jail." But somehow, domestic violence is different than other other crime in the world, and many of these calls arise in the context of a divorce concerning child custody. It's a crock of sh... and a terribly sexist injustice.

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 03:31:23 PM EST
    In the UK, it has recently been decided that the Crown Prosectution Service can proceed with a DV case even if the victim drops the charges. Like this recent US ruling, this will positively impact in three ways:
    IF these three conditions are met this might be a good thing: A. The Crown Prosecution is given descretion based on the evidence of the case B. There is physical evidence of some sort involved and no mutual brawling. People shouldn't be prosecuted by the Crown, or anyone else merely based on an assertion by someone who doesn't even have to confront them in court under sworn circumstances. C. No financial or political incentive exists for the CP to go ahead with a case, and no evaluation is done on the CP as to what percent of cases he/she takes forward. DV victims should, of course, have the option to have the CP press ahead for them, but it should be their choice. If that forfeit it, the CP's decision should be final.

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#11)
    by HK on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 02:33:51 AM EST
    JPF, you criticise my statement:
    I imagine that the vast majority of women who make complaints about domestic violence are beign truthful
    and then go on to write this:
    many of these calls arise in the context of a divorce concerning child custody
    I made it clear that my statement was a matter of opinion for which I had no facts, but yours was presented as fact with no substantiation whatsoever. It is wrong that some people make false accusations for their own ends. It is also wrong that some people live in fear of being beaten or raped on a daily basis. Statistics about actual occurances of DV and false allegations are extremely difficult to come by as not all instances are reported and not all false allegations are exposed as such. However, secrets and lies are by the by when you have a corpse: Every year in the United States, 1000 to 1600 women die at the hands of their male partners, often after a long, escalating pattern of battering. This figure will be greater if you take into consideration the men who die as a result of DV. These deaths could be prevented by the measures stated above. Any miscarriage of justice is wrong. I don't think any level of this is acceptible. But equally justice is not served when the guilty go free. Your situation is desperate but there is another side to this too.

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#12)
    by HK on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 02:36:16 AM EST
    I have checked the above link and the URL is correct, but I can't get the link to work. The statistic is from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service website.

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    HK, you're right, of course. There is a serious problem that cries for a solution. But are you agreeing that the only solution is to chip away at the Constitution? There were alternatives. One for example might be the building of safe houses on the grounds or next door to police departments. Or police guards at existing safe houses. Or private security. The argument against those possible solutions might be that women, due to battered women's syndrome, would not go to the safe houses, or would not press charges. There is already a solution to that under law, and that is any citizen who is a witness or who knows the facts can make a citizen's arrest. They could then testify. There were other options than another chip out of the foundation of the Bill of Rights. This ruling won't be limited to spousal abuse cases.

    Re: Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statemen (none / 0) (#14)
    by HK on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:27:49 AM EST
    PN, as a Brit, I have only sketchy knowledge of the Constitution. I'm trying to expand on this knowledge all the time, so please bear with me. From what I can gather, the issue at stake is the defendant's right to confront witnesses. In DV cases, this is a problem as there has often been a well-cultivated fear in the witness/victim that has been imposed by the defendant. From what I know of the Constitution, it is a good thing, but I don't know what the solution is in this instance where police time and money is wasted due to a reluctant witness. DV cases are dificult as the victim often has a misplaced trust and sense of dependancy on the perpetrator. It is difficult to break that deadlock. Often, no third party is a witness to the abuse and so whether or not the case progresses depends entirely on the victim. Another possible downfall in this ruling is that it may deter victims from making an emergency call in the first place, knowing that it might be used in court in a case they don't want to bring. I think you are right when you say that other avenues must be explored.

    Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statements | 14 comments (14 topical)