A UNC School of Government Blog
In my last post, I looked at the majority opinion in Bryant. Today, I’ll discuss the other opinions, focusing on Scalia’s dissent. In my final post on this issue, I’ll wrap up with a discussion of what the case means for evolving confrontation clause law. As noted in my last post, Justice Sotomayor wrote the … Read more
On February 28, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided Michigan v. Bryant, its latest Crawford case. In an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that a homicide victim’s statements to responding officers were non-testimonial. In this post, I will explore the majority opinion. In my next post, I will summarize the other … Read more
Under G.S. 15A-1345(e), a probationer is entitled at a probation violation hearing to “confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses unless the court finds good cause for not allowing confrontation.” What does that statute mean by confrontation? The statute’s language comes directly from a 1973 case called Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), in which the … Read more
Suppose that the state wants to introduce the defendant’s phone records, in order to show that he called the victim in violation of a DVPO. The state subpoenas the records, and the phone company provides them, along with an affidavit from an appropriate employee stating that they are business records. Armed with the records and … Read more
In my first post on this topic, I set the stage for a discussion about the constitutionality of remote two-way testimony. In my second post, I explored the legal authority on that issue. In this final post, I will introduce two procedures might allow the State to achieve some of the benefits of remote testimony, … Read more
In my last post, I set the stage for a discussion about the constitutionality of remote two-way testimony. In this post I will explore the authority bearing on that question. Guidance from the United States Supreme Court The question whether remote two-way testimony satisfies the confrontation clause has not been resolved in a … Read more
Since the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), interest has been growing in the use of remote testimony as a method to satisfy the confrontation clause. Crawford held that under the sixth amendment’s confrontation clause, testimonial statements by witnesses who do not appear at trial cannot be admitted … Read more
In 2002, David Hurt pled guilty to second-degree murder. Over the next several years his case bounced back and forth between the trial and appellate courts based on problems with his aggravated-range sentence. In the meantime, the United States Supreme Court decided Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Hurt’s case was eventually remanded for … Read more
In at least five prior posts on this blog (here, here, here, here, and here) I have written about the use of substitute analysts after Crawford and Melendez-Diaz. The basic issue is whether the confrontation clause is violated when an expert testifies to an opinion based on tests or analysis done by a non-testifying analyst. … Read more
Earlier posts (here, here, and here) discuss the statutory and constitutional requirements for obtaining a sample of a defendant’s blood for analysis in an implied-consent case. This post likewise addresses blood draws in such cases but addresses two narrower issues. First, must the State establish that the blood was drawn by a qualified person before … Read more