691, 738–746. Far from obviating the need for cross-examination, the “interlocking” ambiguity of the two statements made it all the more imperative that they be tested to tease out the truth.147 Wash. 2d 424, 54 P. 3d 656, reversed and remanded. This history supports two inferences about the meaning of the Sixth Amendment. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed. Cf. I, I, my mind goesblank when things like this happen. Did you ever see anything in [Lee’s] hands?“A. Okay, he lifted his hand over his head maybe to strike Michael’s hand down or something and then he put his hands in his … put his right hand in his right pocket … took a step back … Michael proceeded to stab him … then his hands were like … how do you explain this … open arms … with his hands open and he fell down … and we ran (describing subject holding hands open, palms toward assailant). The court rejected the State’s argument that guarantees of trustworthiness were unnecessary since petitioner waived his confrontation rights by invoking the marital privilege.
155 (punctuationadded).“A. Okay, he lifted his hand over his headmaybe to strike Michael’s hand down or something and thenhe put his hands in his … put his right hand in his rightpocket … took a step back … Michael proceeded to stabhim … then his hands were like … how do you explainthis … open arms … with his hands open and he felldown … and we ran (describing subject holding hands open,palms toward assailant).“Q.
Argued November 10, 2003—Decided March 8, 2004 The judgment of the Washington Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.“Q. Did you see anything in his hands at that point? Chief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice O’Connor joins, concurring in the judgment.on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of washington“A. Yeah, after, after the fact, yes.“Q. Okay, when he’s standing there with his open hands, you’re talking about Kenny, correct?“A. (pausing) I know he reached into his pocket … or somethin’ … I don’t know what. Gilbert’s noted in 1769:“A. I think so, but I’m not positive.“Q. Okay, when you think so, what do you mean by that? Petitioner Michael Crawford stabbed a man who allegedly tried to rape his wife, Sylvia. Petitioner was tried for assault and attempted murder. Following is the case brief for Crawford v. Washington, United States Supreme Court, (2004) Case summary for Crawford v. We have no way of knowing whether the jury agreed with the prosecutor or the court. See Landsman, Rise of the Contentious Spirit: Adversary Procedure in Eighteenth Century England, 75 Cornell L. Rev. Argued November 10, 2003—Decided March 8, 2004. He saw Michael coming up. Serv. The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause provides that, \"[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.\" We have held that this bedrock procedural guarantee applies to both federal and state prosecutions. See 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence, §1364, pp. 155 (punctuation added). Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON. It reasoned that “forcing the defendant to choose between the marital privilege and confronting his spouse presents an untenable Hobson’s choice.” 147 Wash. 2d, at 432, 54 P. 3d, at 660. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.Sylvia generally corroborated petitioner’s story about the events leading up to the fight, but her account of the fight itself was arguably different—particularly with respect to whether Lee had drawn a weapon before petitioner assaulted him: Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.“Q. Did Kenny do anything to fight back from this assault?“A. I coulda swore I seen him goin’ for somethin’ before, right before everything happened.