CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...The Child Witness
......Direct Confrontation—Avoidance
.........6th Amend. Considerations
9 Cards On This Topic:

6th Amendment does not require production of minor declarant or finding of unavailability before hearsay admitted under exceptions.

V's statements to 911 operator not testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes; "testimonial" defined.

Using W's hearsay statements at D's trial violated Confrontation Clause: Where testimonial stmts at issue, only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is actual confrontation.

Where testimonial evidence is at issue, Sixth Amendment demands what common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.

Abuser's habeas petition properly denied where child/victim's interview stmts, which contradicted prelim hrg testimony, admissible at trial as they bore "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."

Though C's hearsay statements to O at police station and in ER were clearly testimonial under Crawford, erroneous admission harmless beyond reasonable doubt.

C's hearsay statement to ER doctor at hospital nontestimonial under Crawford and properly admitted at trial.

Crawford inapplicable to C's statement re sex molestation b/c 6th Amend. confrontation right does not extend to parents in state dependency cases; W&IC 355 protects due process rights of accused parent.

Child victim's hearsay statements admitted in a sexual abuse prosecution under EC 1360 inadmissible under rule of Crawford v. Wash. as violative of Confrontation Clause.