Davis and Hammon: Missed Cues Result in Unrealistic Dichotomy

Texas Law Review, Vol. 85, p. 19, 2007

9 Pages Posted: 22 Jul 2010

See all articles by Sarah M. Buel

Sarah M. Buel

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law

Date Written: 2007

Abstract

On its face, the Supreme Court’s combined Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana ruling appears to be a just affirmation of criminal defendants’ right to cross-examine those bearing witness against them. However, Davis has made Confrontation Clause analysis more difficult by failing to mandate the contextual analysis necessary to ensure a proper balancing of constitutional and social norms - here as they pertain to domestic violence cases. First, Davis employs a faulty analytical framework that mistakenly applies remedies for state interference with confrontation to defendant prevention of a witness’s testimony. It makes little sense to eliminate the injustice alleged in Crawford and Davis, only to reward known criminals for brazen witness tampering and deny terrified victims a legal remedy. Second, the Court misguidedly imposes a temporal delineation that gives rise to an unrealistic dichotomy between evidence relating to ongoing emergencies and evidence of past conduct. Finally, in Hammon, the Supreme Court missed many obvious cues and ignored salient facts supporting the trial court’s determination that the abuse victim’s statements were not testimonial.

Keywords: Confrontation Clause, Davis v. Washington, Hammon v. Indiana

Suggested Citation

Buel, Sarah M., Davis and Hammon: Missed Cues Result in Unrealistic Dichotomy (2007). Texas Law Review, Vol. 85, p. 19, 2007, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1647004

Sarah M. Buel (Contact Author)

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law ( email )

Box 877906
Tempe, AZ 85287-7906
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
62
Abstract Views
882
Rank
632,837
PlumX Metrics