|
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.〔Pointer v. Texas, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5152623152463840925&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr〕 The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings. The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye. In noting the right's long history, the United States Supreme Court has cited Acts of the Apostles 25:16, which reports the Roman governor Porcius Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It is also cited in Shakespeare's ''Richard II'', Blackstone's treatise, and statutes.〔See, e.g., (''Lilly v. Virginia'', 527 U.S. 116 (1999) (Breyer, J. concurring) )〕 == Testimonial hearsay == In 2004, in ''Crawford v. Washington'', the Supreme Court of the United States significantly redefined the application of the right to confrontation. In ''Crawford'', the Supreme Court changed the inquiry from whether the evidence offered had an "indicia of reliability"〔(''Ohio v. Roberts'' )〕 to whether the evidence is testimonial hearsay. The shift was from a substantive and subjective inquiry into the reliability of the evidence, to a procedural question of whether the defendant had been afforded the right to confront her or his accuser. The Court implicitly noted the shift, "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because the defendant is obviously guilty."〔(''Crawford v. Washington'', 541 U.S. 36 (2004) )〕 The ''Crawford'' Court decided the key was whether the evidence was testimonial because of the Sixth Amendment's use of the word "witness." Quoting the dictionary, the Court explained that a witness is one who "bear() testimony" and that "testimony" refers to a "solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing some fact." Nonetheless, in ''Crawford,'' the Supreme Court explicitly declined to provide a "comprehensive" definition of "testimonial" evidence (and, thus evidence subject to the requirements of the Confrontation Clause). In ''Davis v. Washington'' and its companion case, ''Hammon v. Indiana'',〔(''Davis v. Washington'', 547 U.S. 813 (2006) )〕 the Court undertook exactly this task. The Court explained what constitutes testimonial hearsay: :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 indicate that there is no ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. The ''Davis'' Court noted several factors that, objectively considered, help determine whether a statement is testimonial: 1) whether the statement describes past events or events as they are happening, 2) whether the purpose of the statement is to assist in investigation of a crime or, on the other hand, provide information relevant to some other purpose, 3) the level of formality of the exchange in which the statement is made. The court noted that a single conversation with, for example, a 911 operator may contain both statements that are intended to address an ongoing emergency and statements that are for the purpose of assisting police investigation of a crime. The latter are testimonial statements because they are the sort of statements that an objectively reasonable person, listening to the statements, would expect to be used in an investigation or prosecution. The ''Crawford'' decision left the other basic components of the Confrontation Clause's applicability—the witness's availability and the scope of the cross examination—unchanged. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Confrontation Clause」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|