Abstract
Crawford v. Washington, 542 U.S. 36 (2004), is the latest in a series of misconceived confrontation holdings. Its 'testimonial' hearsay standard has created endless confusion and done nothing to protect the rights of defendants nor the needs of fair jury trials. Constitutional confrontation requires legal sufficiency of proof. A crime may not be proved by hearsay alone. This is not a rule about the admissibility of hearsay evidence. It is a rule responsive to the injustice done to Sir Walter Raleigh mandating proof of criminal guilt by live-witness, personal-knowledge testimony sufficient to warrant conviction. Overruling Crawford and replacing it with a proper judicial understanding of the Sixth Amendment will rationalize confrontation law and restore the centrality of jury process to American criminal justice.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
