No prerequisites.
Description
This program provides a comprehensive analysis of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause as reshaped by Crawford v. Washington and its extensive body of subsequent case law. The presentation traces the evolution from the reliability-based framework of Ohio v. Roberts to the modern testimonial-statement doctrine, explaining when out-of-court statements are barred absent prior cross-examination. Participants will gain a clear understanding of what constitutes testimonial evidence, how availability and unavailability of witnesses are assessed, and how courts apply the primary-purpose test in real trial settings.
The program also addresses key post-Crawford developments, including forfeiture by wrongdoing, surrogate expert testimony, and recent Supreme Court decisions affecting forensic evidence and co-defendant statements. Using detailed hypotheticals and litigation examples, the session equips trial attorneys with practical tools for litigating Confrontation Clause issues through motions in limine, objections, and appellate preservation. The focus remains squarely on doctrine, procedure, and trial application.
The four primary learning objectives are
1. Trace the constitutional evolution from Ohio v. Roberts to Crawford v. Washington and its progeny. Participants will be able to explain why the Supreme Court's 2004 decision inCrawford v. Washington fundamentally displaced the prior reliability-based framework ofOhio v. Roberts , articulate the core Crawford holding - that testimonial out-of-court statements are inadmissible unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine - and apply the subsequent refinements introduced byDavis v. Washington ,Melendez-Diaz ,Ohio v. Clark ,Samia v. United States , andSmith v. Arizona .
2. Apply the Primary Purpose Test to classify statements as testimonial or non-testimonial in real trial scenarios. Participants will be able to use the objective primary purpose test established inDavis v. Washington to evaluate whether a given out-of-court statement was made to address an ongoing emergency (non-testimonial) or to establish past facts for future prosecution (testimonial), and to argue that classification persuasively in motions in limine, trial objections, and appellate briefs - including in the context of 911 calls, police and FBI interviews, forensic lab reports, child statements, and co-defendant confessions.
3. Recognize and litigate the doctrine of Forfeiture by Wrongdoing under the standard established inGiles v. California . Participants will be able to identify the three elements the prosecution must prove to invoke forfeiture by wrongdoing - wrongful conduct, causation, and specific intent to prevent testimony - distinguish situations in which the doctrine applies from those in which it does not, and deploy effective defense strategies including demanding strict proof of intent, challenging causation, and objecting to the use of the statement itself as bootstrapped proof of forfeiture.
4. Construct a complete Confrontation Clause litigation strategy from pretrial motion through appellate preservation. Participants will be able to file motions in limine targeting testimonial hearsay, conduct evidentiary hearings on forfeiture and unavailability, make precise Confrontation Clause objections on the record with citation to controlling authority, and preserve constitutional error for appellate review - including in the emerging contexts of surrogate expert testimony challenged underSmith v. Arizona (2024) and child-statement screenings addressed in the Court's 2025 orders.
Who this course is for
Law students
Lawyers


https://rapidgator.net/file/b607d86cf5cb2e634c4dc5818988ce7f/Crawford_and_Beyond.rar.html