1) Crawford v. Washington (POST) 9 sentences min
The Supreme Court in Crawford said that the confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment meant hat the defendant had a right to confront and cross examine witnesses against him/her. If the victim didn’t testify, then that right was in jeopardy. As a result, there were many cases that, after the date of that court decision, we could no longer prosecute because the victim wouldn’t testify.
So here are the questions I want you to answer:
1. What is the Right of Confrontation and why it is important?
2. What is hearsay?
3. Do you agree with the decision in Crawford? Why or why not?
2) Write a helpful response to the students. How you agree and give your positive opinion and add your info to it. 5 sentences min
Student response : The Right of Confrontation gives the defendant the opportunity to confront their accuser. Hemmens, Brody, and Spohn (2017) Criminal Courts claims, “The confrontation clause guarantees the defendant’s right to face and confront any witness or evidence offered by the prosecution in a criminal trial or other proceedings substantially related to his or her ability to defend against the charges faced” (p. 265). In other words, the confrontation clause allows defendants to defend themselves against the charges the prosecution placed. Hearsey are out of court statements made by witnesses who are not available to testify at the defendant’s trial. Those statements can be considered as evidence, only if the judge finds the evidence reliable and trustworthy. I agree with the decision in Crawford v. Washington because testimonial evidence should only be acceptable at trial. The hearsay evidence used in court in the case of Crawford v. Washington by the victim was non testimonial evidence.
Hemmens, C. Brody, D. Spohn, C. (2017). Criminal Courts: A Contemporary Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE Publications Inc.