question archive Crawford and his wife went to a man's apartment, where a fight broke out between Crawford and the man
Crawford and his wife went to a man's apartment, where a fight broke out between Crawford and the man
Subject:BusinessPrice:2.86 Bought8
Crawford and his wife went to a man's apartment, where a fight broke out between Crawford and the man. The man was stabbed during the fight, after which he called the police. Crawford was arrested later that night.
The police interrogated him and his wife sepa- rately. Crawford claimed that the man had attempted to rape his wife and that he acted in self-defense. His wife's story, which the police tape-recorded, did not match his. Crawford was eventually tried and convicted of attempted murder. State law where he lived did not allow one spouse to testify in a "criminal case against the other spouse without that spouse's consent. Crawford did not agree to have his wife testify at his trial. However, the prosecutor played a tape-recording of what she told police. On appeal, Crawford argued that use of this tape recording violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness against him because there was no way to cross-examine the recording."
CHAPTER 14 Criminal Justice Process: The Trial
Problem 14.3
"The tape-Recorded Witness Statement on page 169."
a. What are the strongest arguments for Crawford?
b. What are the strongest arguments for the state?
c. How should this case be decided?
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
A) The main argument in favor of Crawford is that the Sixth Amendment protects him from testimony given by witnesses who he does not have the opportunity to confront. Because state law prevented his wife from testifying against him without his consent, he could argue that the use of her recorded testimony violates this right to cross-examination.
B) The state might argue that the recorded interview of Mrs. Crawford does not amount to "testimony against him," but some other class of evidence. This would be a difficult argument to make, however, since Mrs. Crawford's story clearly incriminates her husband.
C) Although it seems clear that, according to Mrs. Crawford's story, Mr. Crawford is guilty, his conviction should probably be overturned. Mrs. Crawford's recording clearly amounts to testimony against him, and, according to state law and the Constitution, Mr. Crawford had the rights to reject his wife as a witness and to cross-examine witnesses called to testify against him.
