*****Please read the post below and respond with 250 words. Give your opinion and incite on the case and what they wrote. Please include one bluebook citation.*****
In the Davis v. Washington, case the petitioner is accused of assaulting his former girlfriend Michelle McCottry. The petitioner fled the scene. The accuser called 911 and during the course of the call the 911 operator got information from Ms. McCottry that Mr. Davis assaulted her. During the trial Ms. McCottry did not testify but the 911 call was admitted. Mr. Davis objected to the use of the 911 call recording as this did not allow him the right to confront the witness in his case under the 6th Amendmentâ€™s Confrontation Clause. The courts allowed the recording to be admitted and Mr. Davis convicted. Mr. Davis appealed to two courts and the rulings were affirmed.
The courts must determine if the statements as either testimonial and nontestimonial. The courts have found that statements are nontestimonial when they are made while the police interrogation when the primary focus is a to help the police in an ongoing emergency. The courts have also held that testimonial statement are statement that are made when there is no ongoing emergency and â€œ the purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecutionâ€ (1)
Under Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 (2004) Statements made during the course of investigation that were made with the intent to preserve evidence may be admitted in court if it found that the statements where made when there was an emergency going on. Once the emergency has cleared the statements that are made attach the 6thamendment right. The 6th amendment Right to confront a witness that has accused a person of wrong doing.
This is to say that the court determines what is allowed under the 6thAmendment based on the circumstances of the statements. If the statements were taken during the time of an emergency then the statements can be used and they do not attach the 6th amendment right of cross examination of a witness. If there is no emergency then the defendant has the right to cross examine the witness. This also allows the dying declaration. This is when a person that is dying and identifies the person that has cause them harm.
The court uses the test of testimonial or nontestimonial statements to determine what is and what is not allowed in court without the must give the defendant the right to cross examined. In nontestimonial situations the person is not safe and they are trying to get to a safe place or escape trouble or issues. In testimonial situations the police are investigating a crime after the emergency situation has passed. In testimonial situation, there is an active investigation is going on and a person gives statements. The court uses these standards to see what is admissible and not admissible in court.
In the case of Hammon v. Indiana, the case starts as an investigative case that turns in to a emergency situation. The courts allowed the police to testify concerning the case as the witness did not show up to testify (2). The courts allowed her statements to come into play as she was found to be in danger at the time the statement was given. I find this to be a tricky situation as the situation can change and the statements may or may not be allowed or objected to as hearsay.