1909

The testimony would seem to be barred by Crawford. Sworn testimony before a grand jury is the essence of being testimonial. The defendant is not permitted to attend grand jury proceedings, so has no opportunity to cross-examine.

The problem says that the witness has mysteriously disappeared. The right to invoke Crawford can be forfeited if the witness's unavailability has been procured through the wrongdoing of the defendant. If there were evidence linking the defendant to the disappearance, then he would not be able to invoke Crawford, but no such evidence has been presented. Mere suspicion that the defendant had something to do with a witness’s disappearance because he has a motive is not enough.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 1909

Finally, assume that a witness testifies that she was driving with a friend when the friend remarked, "Isn't that Lance Armstrong at the Chicken Shack?" Evidence shows that the Chicken Shack is a drug sales location. Assume the statement qualifies as a present sense impression. May the prosecution offer it against Armstrong at trial, or is it barred by Crawford? When you think you know the answer, click here .