Codified rules of evidence provide judges with a framework for ruling on most evidence objections, but because evidence rules are subject to constitutional requirements, judges often must also apply vaguely defined principles arising under the Due Process, Compulsory Process, and Confrontation Clauses. This three part series will guide judges through the proper analysis for constitution-based evidence objections.

PART 1: CRAWFORD AT 21 It has been 21 years since the Supreme Court abandoned its previous Confrontation Clause jurisprudence in favor of an approach that requires judges to determine whether hearsay statements offered by the prosecution are testimonial or non-testimonial. Over those two decades, the Court has provided incremental guidance, focusing alternatively on the purpose of the statement, the nature of the declarant, and the degree of formality. The Court’s most recent opinion clarifies how the Clause applies to statements relied upon by experts to form the basis of their opinion and in turn, reveals a common hearsay fallacy. This session will engage judges in a complete discussion of the right to confrontation.