Abstract
The purpose of this article is to show the error in the majorities’ decision in Melendez-Diaz by approaching the issue from two perspectives. First, by investigating the cases and legal doctrines created by the Supreme Court in the years preceding Melendez-Diaz, this article will demonstrate why the case was erroneously decided. Second, this article explores the possibility that the majority decision was correct and thus the recently devised standard in Crawford v. Washington is inherently flawed. This article will further discuss the prior application of law before the Melendez-Diaz decision, offer analysis on the string of cases that led to the Melendez-Diaz decision, and evaluate where the law went wrong. Finally, this article will introduce a revised legal doctrine on what should be considered testimonial evidence against an accused based upon sound policy considerations and the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused.
Recommended Citation
Joseph Henn,
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts: The Future of the Confrontation Clause,
15
Barry L. Rev.
(2010).
Available at:
https://lawpublications.barry.edu/barrylrev/vol15/iss1/6