Crawford v. Washington
Michael Crawford was convicted of assault after he stabbed Richard Lee at Lee’s apartment. Crawford and his wife, who was present during the assault, initially provided substantially similar accounts of the attack to police. When questioned again several hours later, however, the Crawfords’ stories were different from their initial accounts and from each other's. The distinguishing factor was whether Lee had a weapon: Crawford thought Lee had a weapon in his hand when he stabbed him, whereas his wife stated that Lee grabbed for a weapon after Crawford stabbed him.
Crawford invoked the marital privilege at trial to prevent his wife from testifying against him; however, the state introduced her second statement at trial to undermine Crawford’s self-defense argument. Crawford appealed his conviction, claiming that his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness against him in court was violated when his wife’s statement was admitted at trial. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. Roberts, statements of non-testifying accomplices are not admitted at trial unless they are sufficiently reliable and trustworthy–e.g., if the statements “interlock” or are virtually identical. The appeals court found that the Crawfords’ second statements did not interlock, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed, noting that the differences between the two second statements was minor.
Questions Presented:
1. Whether the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment permits the admission against a criminal defendant of a custodial statement by a potential accomplice on the ground that parts of the
statement “interlock” with the defendant’s custodial statement?
2. Whether the Confrontation Clause framework established in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), should be reevaluated and read to unequivocally prohibit the admission of out-of-court
statements insofar as they are contained in “testimonial” materials, such as tape-recorded custodial statements.
