Repository Collection 03

Crawford v. Washington

CASE ENTRY

Last Revised • July 10, 2026

"In Crawford v. Washington (2004) the Court held that admission of the defendant's wife's out-of-court statements to police officers, regarding the incident in which the defendant allegedly stabbed the victim, violated the Confrontation Clause, regardless of whether statements were deemed reliable by the court, where statements were testimonial and the defendant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the wife."


Related SMAR Citation

“In Crawford v. Washington (2004) the Court held that admission of the defendant's wife's out-ofcourt statements to police officers, regarding the incident in which the defendant allegedly stabbed the victim, violated the Confrontation Clause, regardless of whether statements were deemed reliable by the court, where statements were testimonial and the defendant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the wife.”


Case Name

Crawford v. Washington


Citation

541 U.S. 36 (2004)


Date

March 8, 2004


Verification Source

Original United States Supreme Court opinion


Source Location

United States Supreme Court Opinion


Highlighted Pages

1 - 2, 8 - 10, 13


Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 53, Paragraph: 109


Source Status

✔ Original Court Order obtained and reviewed.

✔ Relevant passages highlighted.

✔ Publicly available source

✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive


Cited to Support

May's allegation that the out-of-court statements attributed to Darrell Godfrey constituted testimonial statements protected by the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. May cites Davis v. Washington to support the principle that statements made during police interrogation are testimonial when the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution. May relies upon this definition to argue that Godfrey's statements to law enforcement were testimonial in nature and therefore could not be introduced against the Defendant without an opportunity for cross-examination.


Supporting Documents

Original Article

Link to the original article.

View Website →


Highlighted Research Copy

Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.

View PDF →


Continue Your Research

Return to Claim II

Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Claim II.

Browse Sources →

Return to Source Verification Archive

Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.

Browse Archive →