1902

None of these statements fall within Crawford.

(1) Middle Man is a co-conspirator. His statements are therefore attributed to the defendant himself as statements of the opposing party himself, and does not constitute testimony against him.

(2) Some of the conversation is not hearsay at all, such as the request to bring the money to the Chicken Shack in the future. If it's not hearsay, it can't be a factual accusation, and does not fall within Crawford.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 1902

What about a 9-1-1 call? Suppose the prosecution offers a 9-1-1 tape into evidence from the clerk at a convenience store saying "We were just robbed by a guy wearing a black coat who ran down Fourth Street." Assume this otherwise qualifies as an excited utterance, could the defense object to any of or all of it as violating the Confrontation Clause? When you think you know the answer, click here