Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A person whom a declarant or report preparer intends to accuse of criminal conduct. A statement or laboratory report prepared primarily to accuse such a person is testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes and requires the declarant to be available for cross-examination unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to confront the declarant.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
4
DNA Profile From Routine Screening
A retail chain generated a DNA profile from a glove recovered during ordinary loss-prevention sweeps years before any suspicion attached to Grant. At trial an expert relied on the numerical data from that profile solely to explain the basis for his independent opinion matching the crime-scene glove to Grant. Because the profile had been created for ordinary business purposes rather than to accuse any particular person the court treated Grant as outside the category of a targeted individual and admitted the testimony.
Grand Jury Witness Testimony
After a grand jury investigation ended and the target had been exonerated or charged, a witness sought to publish his own testimony. The statute attempted to keep the information from the targeted individual to prevent escape or retribution, but once the investigation concluded that justification no longer applied and the witness could disclose his testimony without violating the secrecy rule.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Study Supplements
Butterworth v. Smith494 U.S. 624 (1990)
Statements During Ongoing Emergency
A victim made statements to police describing an assault while the assailant remained at large and the emergency continued. Because the primary purpose of the statements was to obtain assistance rather than to accuse a targeted individual the statements were nontestimonial and the Confrontation Clause did not bar their admission even though the declarant did not testify.
Davis v. Washington547 U.S. 813 (2006)
Forfeiture Targeting Enterprise Assets
Federal prosecutors obtained a RICO forfeiture order against an entire business enterprise that had been used to facilitate racketeering. The order reached beyond punishment of any single targeted individual and instead aimed at the economic structure of the criminal organization itself.
Alexander v. United States509 U.S. 444 (1993)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
2
When is a laboratory report considered prepared to accuse a targeted individual?+
A report is prepared to accuse a targeted individual when its primary purpose at the time of creation is to identify and implicate a specific person in criminal conduct. Reports generated for routine business or medical purposes years before any suspect is identified lack that accusatory purpose and therefore are not testimonial.
Supporting sources
Does the Confrontation Clause bar an expert from relying on a nontestimonial DNA profile?+
No. When the profile is not offered for its truth and was not prepared to accuse a targeted individual an expert may rely on the numerical data solely to explain the basis of an independent opinion without violating the Confrontation Clause.
Supporting sources
547 U.S. 813 (2006)Evidence
…were testimonial. In my view, the proper test is whether the statements were made with the primary purpose of accusing a targeted individual of criminal conduct. The statements in both cases were not made with such a purpose. They were made in response to questions aimed at addressing an ongoing situation. I would affirm both…
TortsIntentional torts · Harms to the person and property interests (assault, battery, false imprisonment, infliction of mental distress, trespass to land and chattels, conversion)UBEIntermediate