confrontation clause in Alabama

2000Accord Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724-25 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) (`a witness is not "unavailable" for purposes of the ... exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial').

2000Accord Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724-25 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) (`a witness is not "unavailable" for purposes of the ... exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial').

2011Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion was necessary to obtain a majority, and, according to the State, “means that the actual holding of the case is that the confrontation clause pertains only, to the statements in the particular forms- included in Justice Thomas’s list.” (State’s brief> at p. 32.) The “list” is a reference to Justice Thomas’s special writings in White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992), Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 , 128 S.Ct. 2678 , 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008), and Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006).

2011Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion was necessary to obtain a majority, and, according to the State, “means that the actual holding of the case is that the confrontation clause pertains only, to the statements in the particular forms- included in Justice Thomas’s list.” (State’s brief> at p. 32.) The “list” is a reference to Justice Thomas’s special writings in White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992), Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 , 128 S.Ct. 2678 , 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008), and Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006).

2011P., states: “No judgment may be reversed or set aside, nor a new trial granted in any ... criminal case on the ground of misdirec tion of the jury, the giving or refusal of special charges or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, ... unless in the opinion of the court to which the appeal is taken or application is made, after examination of the entire cause, it should appear that the error complained of has probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties.” Further, in T.P. v. State, 911 So.2d 1117, 1124 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), this Court discussed the application of the

2011P., states: “No judgment may be reversed or set aside, nor a new trial granted in any ... criminal case on the ground of misdirec tion of the jury, the giving or refusal of special charges or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, ... unless in the opinion of the court to which the appeal is taken or application is made, after examination of the entire cause, it should appear that the error complained of has probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties.” Further, in T.P. v. State, 911 So.2d 1117, 1124 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), this Court discussed the application of the

2003This Court has previously held that `evidence which would normally be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule may still be inadmissible because it violates the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.' Grantham v. State, 580 So.2d 53, 55 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). "`"In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), the Supreme Court `announced that confrontation clause analysis should proceed case-by-case under a two-track approach that tests the necessity and reliability of the contested testimony.' United States v. Perez, 658 F.2d 654 at 660 (9th Cir.1981) (c

2003This Court has previously held that "evidence which would normally be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule may still be inadmissible because it violates the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment." Grantham v. State, 580 So.2d 53, 55 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). "`"`In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), the Supreme Court "announced that confrontation clause analysis should proceed case-by-case under a two-track approach that tests *955 the necessity and reliability of the contested testimony." United States v. Perez, 658 F.2d 654 at 660 (9th Cir.19

2004As this Court noted in Grantham v. State: "Violations of the confrontation clause are, like many other constitutional errors, subject to a harmless error analysis." 580 So.2d at 58 (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673 , 680-84 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)); see also Withee v. State , 728 So.2d at 688 .

2004As this Court noted in Grantham v. State: "Violations of the confrontation clause are, like many other constitutional errors, subject to a harmless error analysis." 580 So.2d at 58 (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673 , 680-84 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)); see also Withee v. State , 728 So.2d at 688 .

2004As this Court noted in Grantham v. State: "Violations of the confrontation clause are, like many other constitutional errors, subject to a harmless error analysis." 580 So.2d at 58 (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673 , 680-84 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)); see also Withee v. State , 728 So.2d at 688 .

2004As this Court noted in Grantham v. State : "Violations of the confrontation clause are, like many other constitutional errors, subject to a harmless error analysis." 580 So.2d at 58 (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680-84 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)); see also Withee v. State, 728 So.2d at 688 .

1989In California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 [, 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 ] (1970), the Court summarized the purposes served by the confrontation clause.

1989In California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 [, 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 ] (1970), the Court summarized the purposes served by the confrontation clause.

2011See, e.g., Henderson v. State, 583 So.2d 276, 290-91 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 583 So.2d 305 (Ala.1991).”).

2004See, e.g., Henderson v. State , 583 So.2d 276 , 290-91 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990), aff'd, 583 So.2d 305 (Ala. 1991). * Note from the reporter of decisions: On June 18, 2004, on return to remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, without opinion.

2011See, e.g., Henderson v. State, 583 So.2d 276, 290-91 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 583 So.2d 305 (Ala.1991).”).

2004See, e.g., Henderson v. State , 583 So.2d 276 , 290-91 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990), aff'd, 583 So.2d 305 (Ala. 1991). * Note from the reporter of decisions: On June 18, 2004, on return to remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, without opinion.

1994The case cited by the juvenile court judge, O.M. v. State, 595 So.2d 514 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), cert. quashed, 595 So.2d 528 (Ala. 1992), involved the admission of the out-of-court statements of both a nontestifying al leged eyewitness and a nontestifying code-fendant.

1994The case cited by the juvenile court judge, O.M. v. State, 595 So.2d 514 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), cert. quashed, 595 So.2d 528 (Ala. 1992), involved the admission of the out-of-court statements of both a nontestifying al leged eyewitness and a nontestifying code-fendant.

2016The Court analyzed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), and the decisions following Crawford stating: “ ‘The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in part that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy thq right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.... ” In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of an unavailable witness’s statement

2016The Court analyzed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), and the decisions following Crawford stating: “ ‘The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in part that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy thq right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.... ” In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of an unavailable witness’s statement

2025Ed. 2d 597 (1980), the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of an unavailable witness's statement against a criminal defendant if the statement bears 'adequate "indicia of reliability." ' "In Crawford [v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004)], the United States Supreme Court overruled Roberts, rejecting the 'reliability' standard and holding that the right to confront witnesses applies to all out-of-court statements that are 'testimonial.' 541 U.S. at 68 .

2025Ed. 2d 597 (1980), the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of an unavailable witness's statement against a criminal defendant if the statement bears 'adequate "indicia of reliability." ' "In Crawford [v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004)], the United States Supreme Court overruled Roberts, rejecting the 'reliability' standard and holding that the right to confront witnesses applies to all out-of-court statements that are 'testimonial.' 541 U.S. at 68 .

2011See Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 242 (1895) (‘The primary object of the [Confrontation Clause] was to prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits, such as were sometimes admitted in civil' cases, being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness ...’); California v. Green, 399 U.S. [149], at 156 [(1970)] (‘It is sufficient to note that the particular vice that gave impetus to the confrontation claim was the practice of trying defendants on ‘evidence’ which consisted solely of ex parte affidavits or depositions secured by the examini

1984The purpose of the confrontation clause of the U.S. constitution, was stated by the United States Supreme Court in Mattox v. United States , 156 U.S. 237 , 15 S.Ct. 337 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895), as follows: "The primary object of the constitutional provision and question was to prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits . . . being used against a prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity, not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the

1997This Court has also held that a certified copy of a death certificate, which would ordinarily be admissible as evidence of the facts therein, could not "be used as the sole evidence in a criminal prosecution for murder to prove the cause of death where live witnesses are available to the State, but are not used for that purpose." Lowery v. State , 55 Ala. App. 514 , 520 , 317 So.2d 365 , 371 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 294 Ala. 763 , 317 So.2d 372 (1975).

1997This Court has also held that a certified copy of a death certificate, which would ordinarily be admissible as evidence of the facts therein, could not "be used as the sole evidence in a criminal prosecution for murder to prove the cause of death where live witnesses are available to the State, but are not used for that purpose." Lowery v. State , 55 Ala. App. 514 , 520 , 317 So.2d 365 , 371 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 294 Ala. 763 , 317 So.2d 372 (1975).

1990In so doing, we stated as follows: " 'Manifestly, the right of an accused to cross examine the witnesses against him is embodied in the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, Davis v. Alaska , 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974).

1990In so doing, we stated as follows: " 'Manifestly, the right of an accused to cross examine the witnesses against him is embodied in the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, Davis v. Alaska , 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974).

1997In Grantham we noted the concerns raised by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Oates: "In addressing the application of the confrontation clause, the [ Oates ] court noted that the defendant could have cross-examined the chemist as to his 'personal qualifications and experience,' and also as to 'whether the tests . . . performed . . ., which were not "mere routine recordation[s] of facts," were correctly performed[;] whether the procedures and analyses used are recognized in the profession as being reliable, and if so, how reliable] and whether any machines used were in go

1991In addressing the application of the confrontation clause, the court noted that the defendant could have cross-examined the chemist as to his "personal qualifications and experience," and also as to "whether the tests . . . performed . . ., which were not 'mere routine recordation[s] of facts,' were correctly performed[;] whether the procedures and analyses used are recognized in the profession as being reliable, and if so, how reliable[;] and whether any machines used were in good working order." Id. at 81-82 (citations omitted).

2025See also United States v. Pablo, 696 F.3d 1280, 1293 (10th Cir. 2012) (noting that, in light of the divided opinions in Williams, admission of forensic reports over a Confrontation Clause objection 'is a nuanced legal issue without clearly established bright line parameters')." 181 So. 3d at 413-16. 14 CR-2024-0655 Likewise in Belcher, supra, a case involving the imposition of the death penalty, the defendant argued that the circuit court had committed plain error by allowing the admission of a DNA report when the forensic biologist who testified regarding the results contained in the DNA repo

2015Ex parte B.B.S. states that the Confrontation Clause requires that hearsay testimony regarding statements of a child sexual-abuse victim should not be admitted without an indicia of reliability, even if the child testifies, 647 So.2d at 714 , However, this Court has previously recognized that, in Crawford , the United States Supreme Court "abrogated the unavailability/reliability analysis of Ohio v. Roberts [, 448 U.S. 56 (1980),] upon which the Alabama Supreme Court relied in Ex parte B.B.S.," and, thus, "[rjeliability of an out-of-court statement is no longer a factor to be considered in con

2015Ex parte B.B.S. states that the Confrontation Clause requires that hearsay testimony regarding statements of a child sexual-abuse victim should not be admitted without an indicia of reliability, even if the child testifies, 647 So.2d at 714 , However, this Court has previously recognized that, in Crawford , the United States Supreme Court "abrogated the unavailability/reliability analysis of Ohio v. Roberts [, 448 U.S. 56 (1980),] upon which the Alabama Supreme Court relied in Ex parte B.B.S.," and, thus, "[rjeliability of an out-of-court statement is no longer a factor to be considered in con