CJUS 410 LU Testimonial and Non Testimonial Statements Discussion

I’m working on a criminal justice discussion question and need the explanation and answer to help me learn.

After completing Read: Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, assume the following facts:

After leaving a bar, a woman enters her car in a darkened parking garage. She is confronted by her ex-husband, against whom she has a domestic no-contact order. She attempts to dial 911 from her cellular telephone but is unable to make a connection. Amazingly, she can take a photograph with her phone and send an accompanying text message, asking for assistance to a law enforcement friend. The officer and woman exchange text messages about who is assaulting her and where she is located until the ex-husband flees. The woman is unable to appear at trial and the defendant moves to suppress the “statements” at his trial for felony violation of the no-contact order. 

• Given the above facts and using the Court’s rationale for distinguishing “testimonial” and “non-testimonial” statements, state whether the text message and photograph should be admitted as evidence at trial and why.
• According to Deuteronomy 19:15, “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (NIV 1984). In light of that scripture, elaborate how you would change or not change your answer.

Case Summary

Procedural Posture

On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington, defendant challenged his conviction, arguing that testimony by a 911 operator about a caller identifying him as her assailant was inadmissible hearsay. On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Indiana, defendant challenged his conviction, arguing that a police officer’s testimony about statements made by the alleged victim at the crime scene was inadmissible hearsay.

Overview

The two cases required a determination of when statements made to law enforcement personnel during a 911 call or at a crime scene were “testimonial” and thus subject to the requirements of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The statement identifying defendant during the 911 call was not “testimonial.” A 911 call was not designed to establish or prove past facts, but to describe circumstances requiring police assistance. The caller spoke about events as they were actually occurring while facing an ongoing emergency, rather than describing past events. The elicited statements were necessary to resolve the emergency rather than to investigate events. In the other case, the statements of the alleged victim were made in response to an officer’s questions in a room away from defendant when there was no immediate threat to her person. The purpose of the interrogation was investigatory. The statements recounted past events; they did precisely what a witness did on direct examination and were inherently “testimonial.” The Court declined to relax the requirements in domestic violence cases but pointed out that the right to confrontation could be forfeited by wrongdoing.

Outcome

The Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington. The Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Indiana and remanded the case for proceedings not inconsistent with the Court’s opinion.