Last Updated on July 29, 2025 by Beltz Law Group
When faced with an assault family violence charge, the stakes are high. Many times, a prosecutor will not dismiss a case even when the alleged victim has signed an affidavit stating that they do not want to press charges or cooperate in the prosecution of the charged defendant. In these types of cases, a Texas criminal defense attorney may have to set a case for trial. This is can be a risky venture based on the evidence. So what happens if the alleged victim does not show up to the trial? How does that impact the case? This article outlines a case that every criminal defense lawyer should have in their brief case and why it is important in the area of assault family violence cases. If, after reading the summary of Crawford v. State, you would like to discuss your assault family violence case with our experienced criminal defense lawyers, feel free to call our office at 214-321-4105.
Understanding Crawford v. State
Criminal Defense Lawyer North Texas
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark Supreme Court case that significantly altered the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.
Facts of the Case:
Michael Crawford was on trial for assault and attempted murder. He claimed self-defense, alleging the victim had tried to rape his wife, Sylvia. Both Michael and Sylvia were interrogated by police after the incident. Sylvia’s statement to the police, tape-recorded, was admitted as evidence at trial. However, Sylvia did not testify in court because of Washington’s marital privilege law, which generally prevents one spouse from testifying against the other without consent. As a result, Michael’s defense counsel had no opportunity to cross-examine Sylvia regarding her statement. The trial court admitted Sylvia’s statement, deeming it reliable because it partially corroborated Michael’s own statement. Michael was convicted. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed, but the Washington Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding Sylvia’s statement reliable under the existing standard set by Ohio v. Roberts (1980).
Issue:
Did the admission of Sylvia’s out-of-court, testimonial statement, without the opportunity for cross-examination, violate Michael Crawford’s Sixth Amendment right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”?
Holding:
Criminal Defense Lawyer North Texas
Yes. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling, holding that the admission of Sylvia’s statement violated the Confrontation Clause.
Reasoning:
Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, extensively reviewed the historical context and purpose of the Confrontation Clause. He concluded that the Clause’s primary evil was the “civil-law mode of criminal procedure,” particularly the use of ex parte examinations (statements taken outside of the defendant’s presence) as evidence against the accused.
The Court distinguished between “testimonial” and “nontestimonial” statements. It held that the Confrontation Clause applies specifically to “testimonial” statements, meaning those made with an eye toward future litigation (e.g., statements made during police interrogations, affidavits, depositions, or prior testimony). For such testimonial statements to be admissible against a criminal defendant, the witness must be unavailable to testify at trial, AND the defendant must have had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
The Court explicitly overruled the “reliability” test established in Ohio v. Roberts. Under Roberts, an unavailable witness’s statement could be admitted if it bore “adequate indicia of reliability,” which could be met if the statement fell within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bore “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” The Crawford Court found this test insufficient because it allowed judges to make subjective determinations of reliability, thereby replacing the constitutionally prescribed method of assessing reliability (cross-examination) with a judicial one.
In Michael Crawford’s case, Sylvia’s statement to the police was clearly “testimonial” because it was made during a police interrogation with the understanding that it could be used in a future prosecution. Since she did not testify at trial due to marital privilege, and Michael had no prior opportunity to cross-examine her, her statement’s admission violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
Significance:
Crawford v. Washington dramatically reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. It established a bright-line rule that for testimonial statements to be admissible, the declarant must be unavailable and the defendant must have had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. This decision has had a significant impact on how prosecutors can use out-of-court statements in criminal trials, requiring a greater emphasis on live testimony and cross-examination.
