Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Testimonial and non-testimonial statements
Testimonial and non-testimonial statements: While the appellant did not attend the trial, she was able to transmit a photograph and some text, which in any case does not warrant to be used as evidence against the defendant. However, it was presented as evidence of the linkages between the appellant and her ex-husband. The scripture states that one person cannot be used as sufficient evidence to criminalize a person’s wrongdoing. Instead, Deuteronomy 19:15 asserts that at least two witnesses can provide sufficient evidence against a case in a court of law (Jonakait, 2005).
The defendant can dismiss the litigant’s claim asserting that presenting a photograph and text without affording him the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant violates his Sixth Amendment right to challenge the plaintiff as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Adrian Martell Davis v. Washington. In this circumstance, the court can dismiss the case arguing that the photograph and text cannot be used as testimony.
In short, the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment does not approve non-testimonial statements and does not therefore qualify to be used as evidence at trial. The photograph and the text provided to 911 were intended to help the police determine an ongoing emergency, as opposed to being used as testimony to a past crime (Lininger, 2005).
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
The bench can, therefore, uphold the view that under this backdrop, the content cannot act as testimony. While her not appearing at trial was warranted by the Sixth Amendment, the content was insufficient to prosecute the defendant because the motives may be crooked. The photograph and text were prohibited. The Adrian Martell Davis v. Washington altered hostility analysis. Its existing effect was immediate and substantial in the justice system on the evidence termed as irrelevant (Raeder, 2007).
References
Lininger, T. (2005). Prosecuting Batterers After Crawford. Virginia Law Review, 747-822.
Jonakait, R. N. (2005). ‘Witnesses’ in the Confrontation Clause: Crawford v. Washington, Noah Webster, and Compulsory Process. NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper, (05/06), 2.
Raeder, M. S. (2007). Domestic Violence Cases After Davis: Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full. JL & Pol’y, 15, 759.
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
