Crawford Violation Example Cases
In Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 84 (1 Cir. 2004), the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant's argument that the admission of a statement made to a civilian acquaintance (Garcia) violated Crawford: "In light of these formulations, Christian's statements do not qualify as testimonial. They were not ex-parte in-court testimony or its equivalent; were not contained in formalized documents such as affidavits, depositions, or prior testimony transcripts; and were not made as part of a confession resulting from custodial examination. Rather, Christian's statements were made during a private conversation with Garcia." Allen, 370 F.3d at 84.
Citing Horton, the Nebraska Supreme Court, in State v. Vaught, 268 Neb. 316, 682 N.W.2d 284 (2004) held that the statement of a child victim of sexual abuse did not fit any of the above formulations, nor did it share characteristics of these formulations. Consequently, the court held that the victim's statement to an emergency room physician was not a "testimonial" statement under Crawford, even though the child's statement identified the perpetrator, the half-brother of the child's mother. Vaught, 268 Neb. at 325, 612 N.W.2d at 292.
In State v. Manuel, 275 Wis. 2d 146, 2004 WI App 111, 685 N.W.2d 525 (2004), the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin rejected the defendant's argument that a police officer's testimony recounting the statement of the girlfriend of an eyewitness (Stamps), which statement in turn related that Stamps saw the defendant shoot the victim, was violative of Crawford. "Despite the Crawford Court's failure to provide a 'comprehensive definition,' we have little difficulty concluding that Stamps' statement to his girlfriend is not 'testimonial' in nature. the statement was not made to an agent of the government or to someone engaged in investigating the shooting. the statement thus does not fall within any of the categories of testimonial statements expressly identified in Crawford (prior trial, preliminary-hearing and grand jury testimony and statements made during police interrogations)." Manuel. 685 N.W.2d at 532.
In People v. Garrison, 109 P.3d 1009, (Colo. App. Oct. 7, 2004), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that a murder victim's hearsay statements to his training manager that "an old friend of his was calling and threatening to kill him," were properly admitted at the defendant's trial under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. the court also rejected the defendant's claim under Crawford: "Nothing in the record indicates that the victim's statements to the training manager would constitute testimonial hearsay. the statements were not made to the police and there is no indication that the manager was acting as a police agent.
Thus, the court concluded that Crawford does not apply here." Garrison, 2004 Colo. App.