Also known as: confrontation right · right to confrontation · rights of confrontation · confrontation clause · Sixth Amendment confrontation right
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional guarantee under the Sixth Amendment that an accused in a criminal prosecution be confronted with the witnesses against him. The right bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Rosa Ruiz stood trial for hacking. The prosecution offered a recorded interview that Detective Samuel conducted with coworker Jasper at the police station after Jasper's firing. Jasper had since left the country and refused to appear. The court excluded the recording because Rosa had never been given an opportunity to cross-examine Jasper about the statements.
Ronald Reed faced assault charges after a restaurant altercation. Employee Renee Rogers called 911 during the incident but, after the assailant fled, the dispatcher continued questioning her for a detailed narrative of the events. The court excluded the post-flight portion of the call because its primary purpose had shifted to documenting past conduct for prosecution.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rajesh Rao was prosecuted for theft. Key prosecution witness Roberto Reyes had a juvenile adjudication and was on probation. The defense sought to cross-examine Reyes about that status to show possible bias. The court permitted the inquiry because the evidence was necessary to test the witness's credibility.
Rachel Ramirez was charged with drug distribution. The prosecution introduced a lab report identifying the substance through the testimony of a supervisor who had not performed the testing. The court excluded the report because the analyst who prepared it was not available for cross-examination.
Renee Rogers was tried for child abuse. The child had told teachers that Rogers was the abuser. The statements were admitted because their primary purpose was to address an ongoing emergency and protect the child rather than to create evidence for prosecution.
Roberto Reyes stood trial for sexual assault. The prosecution's expert relied on a DNA profile generated by a non-testifying lab to form her own opinion. The court allowed the testimony because the profile was not admitted for its truth and had not been prepared to accuse a targeted individual.
A statement is testimonial when its primary purpose is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to criminal prosecution. Statements made during an ongoing emergency to enable police assistance are nontestimonial and may be admitted without confrontation.
Supporting sources
Forensic laboratory reports prepared for use in a criminal prosecution are testimonial statements. Their admission without testimony from the analyst who prepared them violates the confrontation right.
Supporting sources
An expert may rely on a DNA profile produced by a non-testifying laboratory when the report is not admitted for its truth but only to explain the basis of the expert's opinion and was not prepared primarily to accuse a targeted individual.
Supporting sources
The confrontation clause can require that a defendant be permitted to cross-examine a prosecution witness about the witness's juvenile record or probation status when such examination is necessary to show bias or attack credibility.
Supporting sources
…with testimonial hearsay, that does not mean that it has no application to such statements. This Court has long held that the right of confrontation does not apply to out-of-court statements that are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The text of the Confrontation Clause reflects this focus. It applies to “witnesses”…