By Jenna Sundel
News Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Justice Samuel Alito expressed interest in reconsidering a ruling issued by the Supreme Court over 20 years ago.
The Court decided to not consider a case before it on Monday. Alito agreed with the decision, but he also released a statement questioning an interpretation the Court adopted in a 2004 ruling.
"I agree that we should not grant certiorari in this case, but in an appropriate case we should reconsider the interpretation of the Confrontation Clause that the Court adopted in Crawford v. Washington," Alito said.
Read More on News
...
Why It Matters
Crawford v. Washington centered around the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The clause grants the accused the right to confront witnesses during criminal prosecution.
The Court ruled that testimony from witnesses who have since become unavailable may not be admitted without cross-examination, because doing so would violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses.
What To Know
Alito argued that the Confrontation Clause "continues to confound courts, attorneys, and commentators."
The case before the Court, Cid C. Franklin v. New York, asked for clarification of what a "testimonial statement" is under case law. Alito said the problem could be the legal precedent and its lack of specificity.
"The real problem may be Crawford itself and its conclusion that the Confrontation Clause codified a well-established common law right against the use of any 'testimonial' statement made out of court by a person who is available to testify and was not previously subject to cross-examination by the defendant," Alito wrote.
Alito warned about the dangers of reconsidering Court decisions but said the Confrontation Clause needs mending.
"Our body of constitutional decisions would be in perpetual turmoil if we reconsidered every decision resting on an interpretation of history that is subsequently challenged in the law reviews," Alito said. "But as both Justice Gorsuch and I recognize, the current state of our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence is unstable and badly in need of repair."
Justice Neil Gorsuch also released a statement questioning the current interpretation of the Confrontation Clause.
What did Crawford v. Washington establish?
Michael Crawford was on trial for charges of assault and attempted murder in 2004. His wife, Sylvia Crawford, could not be compelled to testify due to spousal privilege law in Washington state.
The prosecution introduced Sylvia's statement to police as evidence. The defense objected, arguing that Michael would not be able to confront the statement without waiving spousal privilege.
The Court found that the introduction of the recorded statement was a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
What People Are Saying
Alito, in a statement published Monday: "If we reconsider Crawford, as I think we should, the result might be a reaffirmation of Crawford or the adoption of an entirely different Confrontation Clause rule. But whatever the outcome might be, reconsideration is needed."
Gorsuch, in a statement published Monday: "Now may not be the moment, I concede, for the Court to take up these questions. The Court issued its latest word on the Confrontation Clause in Smith less than a year ago. Before weighing in again, we may benefit from the insights and further experience of our lower court colleagues."
What Happens Next
While Alito and Gorsuch have expressed interest in revisiting Crawford v. Washington, it is unclear where the remaining justices stand.
Since the Court declined to consider Franklin v. New York, the lower court's decision stands.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines