NCJ Number
84348
Date Published
Unknown
Length
0 pages
Annotation
Analysis of the 1970 Supreme Court case of Dutton v. Evans indicates the lack of consensus in legal opinion regarding the relationship between the confrontation guarantee and the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Abstract
The Supreme Court held in California v. Green in 1970 that the sixth amendment's confrontation clause guarantees a criminal defendant cross-examination at the time of the out-of-court statement or at trial. This decision, along with three earlier cases involving confrontation, gives rise to a doctrinal discrepancy by rendering all exceptions to the hearsay rule unconstitutional. Subsequently, three opinions were submitted in Dutton v. Evans, which was decided by a 'plurality' rather than a majority of Supreme Court justices. Evans' appeal was denied due to the 'especially' reliable quality of the hearsay evidence, even though violation of the confrontation guarantee had occurred. The lack of consensus in this decision, as well as its failure to further define confrontation, indicates that the justices were aware of the dilemma to which the Court's earlier efforts at confrontation law had led with respect to hearsay exceptions. Opinions in subsequent cases, such as Chambers v. Mississippi, Davis v. Alaska, and New Mexico v. Lum, are contradictory in reference to this issue. It is predicted that the relationship between the confrontation guarantee and the exceptions to the hearsay rule will come before the Supreme Court again until a satisfactory conclusion is reached. For additional discussion of the hearsay/confrontation issue, see NCJ 84347.