Ohio v. Clark and Confrontation Clause Concerns

In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56, 66 (1980), the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the Confrontation Clause to permit the admission of out-of-court statements by an unavailable witness, so long as the statements bore “adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’” Such indicia are present if “the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bears “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States adopted a different approach: the Sixth Amendment prohibits the introduction of testimonial statements by a non-testifying witness, unless the witness is “unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.”  

In this course, Cory H. Morris, a Long Island-based civil rights and criminal defense attorney, discusses the law surrounding the Ohio v. Clark decision, the nuances of having a young declarant, a questioner who is not a law enforcement officer, and the open questions we are left with now.  

Learning Objectives:

I.     Understand the facts and background of Ohio v. Clark 

II.    Discuss Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56 (1980) and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004)

III.   Recognize the landscape post- Crawford v. Washington and Ohio v. Clark

IV.   Identify open issues in child testimony