Davis v. Washington
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Davis_v._Washington an entity of type: Thing
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and written by Justice Antonin Scalia that established the test used to determine whether a hearsay statement is "testimonial" for Confrontation Clause purposes. Two years prior to its publication, in Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” The Supreme Court declined to define "testimonial" in Crawford which left lower courts without any guidance. However, in Davis v. Washington, along with Hammon v. Indiana which was consolidated with Davis, the Court clarified th
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Davis v. Washington
rdf:langString
Adrian Martell Davis, Petitioner v. Washington; Hershel Hammon, Petitioner v. Indiana
xsd:integer
7916845
xsd:integer
1093210885
rdf:langString
On remand at, Remanded by Hammon v. State, 2006 Ind. LEXIS 793
xsd:integer
5
rdf:langString
Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
rdf:langString
Crawford v. Washington, Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
<second>
172800.0
<second>
17280.0
xsd:integer
813
xsd:integer
547
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-20
xsd:integer
2006
rdf:langString
Davis v. Washington,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-19
xsd:integer
2006
rdf:langString
Adrian Martell Davis, Petitioner v. Washington; Hershel Hammon, Petitioner v. Indiana
rdf:langString
A 911 phone call describing an "ongoing emergency" is not testimonial in nature, and thus may be admitted at trial even if the caller is not available without violating the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.
rdf:langString
Davis v. Washington
rdf:langString
Scalia
rdf:langString
FederalEvidence.com
rdf:langString
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and written by Justice Antonin Scalia that established the test used to determine whether a hearsay statement is "testimonial" for Confrontation Clause purposes. Two years prior to its publication, in Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” The Supreme Court declined to define "testimonial" in Crawford which left lower courts without any guidance. However, in Davis v. Washington, along with Hammon v. Indiana which was consolidated with Davis, the Court clarified the meaning of "testimonial" and articulated a new standard. Specifically, the Court stated that: 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 objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. The Court further developed this standard in Michigan v. Bryant.
rdf:langString
Thomas
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
8573