CJUS 410 LU Testimonial & Non Testimonial Statement Discussion Replies

I need 2 different replies to 2 different discussions:

Discussion 1…. 

Michael Urbanski

    Testimony can be generally defined as “a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact” (Davis v Washington, 2006). Based off of the information provided in the prompt we can surmise that there is evidence of a protective order violation. Based off of the metadata, the plaintiff can prove that the phone belonged to the victim and that the defendant was present. However we learned from the reading that this would be considered non-testimonial due to the circumstances.Statements are “non-testimonial 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” (Davis v Washington, 2006). Based off the confrontation clause in the sixth amendment the defense legal team does have ground to call this evidence into question. Testimony does not necessarily need to happen in the presence of the court room, however it does need to be done under oath. A written statement from the police department can be used as testimony as long as the individual understands the consequences for untruthfulness.

    Based on the context of the scripture it states that no one witness shall be used to convict you; however it is the judges responsibility to ensure the witness is truthful. If the judge determines that the witness is committing deception then you have the biblical right to retaliate. “It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deuteronomy 19:21). Some times it may be impossible to have two witness for a crime. I agree with the current system that is in place in regard to criminal justice. Let the judge and the jury figure out who is telling the truth. However there does need to be punishment for those that provide false testimony.

Discussion 2….  

Nyjina Finney

In Davis v. Washington, the Supreme Court established a framework to distinguish between testimonial and non-testimonial statements for Confrontation Clause analysis. According to Crawford & Confrontation, “a testimonial statement is a statement about a past event or fact that the declarant would reasonably expect to be used later in criminal prosecution.”

In this case, the victim sent a text message to a law enforcement officer. The victim requested assistance from the officer via text message. They exchanged messages to identify the assailant and victim’s location.

In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that statements made to law enforcement officers during a 911 call or at a crime scene are presumptively testimonial. The court ruled that there is a presumption that statements made during police interrogation are inadmissible in court. Still, the circumstances indicate that the primary purpose of the interrogation was to help the police address an ongoing emergency.

In this case, the victim sent a text message to a law enforcement officer to request assistance. The victim was in a dangerous situation and was seeking help from the officer. Therefore, the text message was not testimonial.

Is The Photograph Testimonial?

The photograph, in this case, was taken by the victim of her ex-husband assaulting her. The photograph was not taken in response to police questioning or to preserve evidence for trial. Therefore, the photograph is not a testimonial.

I believe the text message and photograph are admissible evidence. The evidence is not a testimonial statement as they were not made in response to questioning by law enforcement. The text message was sent to a law enforcement officer to request assistance, while the victim captured the photograph to document the assault. These materials serve as objective evidence of the crime, and their admission would not violate the Confrontation Clause. In John 1 3:4, we learn, “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.”