Can Recorded Testimony Be Used in Court? | Crawford v. Washington

I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy hereor visit

Mr. Beat's band

Mr. Beat on Twitter

In episode 25 of Supreme Court Briefs, a man stabs another man, but calls it self-defense. However, the only witness can't testify in court, so they use her recorded police interrogation instead. Wait a second, CAN THEY DO THAT?!?

Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Electric Needle Room (Matt Beat). All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines. Computer error sound effect by Mike Koenig

Photo by Lwp Kommunikacio

Check out cool primary sources here:

Other sources used:

Olympia, Washington

August 5, 1999

Sylvia Crawford tells her husband, Michael Crawford, that a man named Kenneth Lee had attempted to rape her. Michael Crawford, who had been heavily drinking some alcohol, does not go to the police to report this. Instead, the very angry and very drunk Crawford goes to Kenneth Lee’s apartment. Crawford and Lee get into a fight, and the next thing you know Crawford is stabbing Lee in the stomach. During the stabbing, Crawford’s hand also got cut.

After the police did get involved, they arrested both Michael and Sylvia Crawford and interrogated them separately. Michael and Sylvia gave similar accounts of what happened, but there was one important difference. Michael claimed he had stabbed Kenneth out of self-defence, but Sylvia said Kenneth did not have a weapon. This would cause the police to question Michael’s story. How could it be self-defence if Kenneth didn’t even have a weapon?

The State of Washington charged Michael Crawford with assault and attempted murder. State law said people married didn’t have to testify against each other in court, so at Michael’s trial, Sylvia didn’t take the stand. However, the police had recorded her interrogation, and the judge allowed the deputy prosecutor, Robert Lund, to use that tape as evidence that Michael was attempting murder, not acting in self-defense.

Crawford’s lawyers were like, “hold up man, you can’t use that tape!” They said Mrs. Crawford’s recorded statements couldn’t be used as evidence unless they were able to cross examine her, which, as I previously said, under state law they couldn’t. The defense argued this went against the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Crawford had a right to confront his accuser in court, and you can’t cross examine a recording of a voice. Believe me, I have tried. I yell at my own voice recordings all the time.

But nevertheless, the recording was still used as evidence, and influential evidence at that. The State convicted Crawford of attempted murder and assault and sentenced him to about 15 years in prison.

However, the Washington Court of Appeals overturned the decision, arguing that, due to the precedent set by the Supreme Court case Ohio v. Roberts, Sylvia Crawford’s recorded testimony was not reliable enough. Ohio v. Roberts also dealt with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and set up this reliability standard. However, the Washington Supreme Court overturned the Washington Court of Appeals decision and said that Sylvia’s recorded testimony was reliable because it complemented Michael’s testimony well. So they reinstated his conviction. Goodness, all these different interpretations of the same evidence. That never happens!

The Supreme Court was like, “we want in on this action,” and requested to review the case on June 9, 2003. On November 10 that same year, they heard oral arguments. The big question for this case was, “Does using testimony from out of the court, with no chance for cross-examination, go against the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment?”

The court said “yes, why yes it does.” On March 8, 2004, the ruled in favor of Crawford, 9-0. Yep, it was unanimous. The Court argued that Sylvia Crawford’s recorded statement from the police interrogation violated Michael Crawford’s Sixth Amendment right to confront her about it in court.

Justice Antonin Scalia gave the opinion. He argued that any out-of court statement that is “testimonial” should not be allowed as evidence, unless this statement came from a person who had no way of testifying in court AND this person could be cross-examined by the defendant ahead of time.

Crawford v. Washington overturned Ohio v. Roberts. It made it much more difficult to allow “hearsay” evidence to be used in court.