Crawford v. Washington

E237787

Confrontation Clause case United States Supreme Court case criminal procedure case landmark decision

Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (4)

Label	Occurrences
Crawford v. Washington canonical	12
Crawford v. Washington rejected the primary reliance on judicial reliability determinations for testimonial hearsay.	1
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)	1
Michael Crawford v. Washington	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2128607 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Crawford v. Washington
Context triple: [Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, interpretedByCase, Crawford v. Washington]

A. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
B. Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
C. Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
D. Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
E. De Jonge v. Oregon
De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Crawford v. Washington
Target entity description: Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.

A. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
B. Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
C. Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
D. Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
E. De Jonge v. Oregon
De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (48)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Confrontation Clause case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ
areaOfLaw	United States constitutional law ⓘ criminal constitutional procedure ⓘ
arguedDate	2003-11-10 ⓘ
citation	541 U.S. 36 ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Confrontation Clause ⓘ linked to: U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ linked to: U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
country	United States of America ⓘ
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	2004-03-08 ⓘ
fullCaseName	Michael Crawford v. Washington ⓘ linked to: Crawford v. Washington
holding	Testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant ⓘ The reliability test of Ohio v. Roberts is inconsistent with the text and history of the Confrontation Clause for testimonial statements ⓘ
impact	limited the admissibility of testimonial hearsay in criminal prosecutions ⓘ reshaped modern Confrontation Clause jurisprudence ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ David H. Souter ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
legalRule	Out-of-court testimonial statements by witnesses are barred under the Confrontation Clause unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Antonin Scalia ⓘ
originatingCourt	Washington state courts ⓘ linked to: Washington State courts
overruledPrecedentInPart	Ohio v. Roberts ⓘ
page	36 ⓘ
petitioner	Michael Crawford ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
respondent	State of Washington ⓘ linked to: Washington State, United States
subsequentCaseInterpreting	Bullcoming v. New Mexico ⓘ Davis v. Washington ⓘ Giles v. California ⓘ Hammon v. Indiana ⓘ Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts ⓘ Michigan v. Bryant ⓘ Ohio v. Clark ⓘ
topic	criminal trials ⓘ evidence law ⓘ hearsay ⓘ
volume	541 ⓘ
yearDecided	2004 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (15)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution → interpretedByCase → Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

subject linked to: U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment

Crawford v. Washington → fullCaseName → Michael Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

linked to: Crawford v. Washington

Jeffrey L. Fisher → notableCase → Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

Michael Crawford → partyIn → Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

Michael Crawford → caseCitation → Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) ⓘ

linked to: Crawford v. Washington

Ohio v. Roberts → relatedCase → Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

Ohio v. Roberts → abrogatedBy → Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

Ohio v. Roberts → overruledInPart → Crawford v. Washington rejected the primary reliance on judicial reliability determinations for testimonial hearsay. ⓘ

linked to: Crawford v. Washington

Davis v. Washington → relatedPrecedent → Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

Hammon v. Indiana → relatedTo → Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts → relatedToCase → Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

Bullcoming v. New Mexico → relatedTo → Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

Michigan v. Bryant → relatedCase → Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

Giles v. California → relatedDoctrine → Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

Ohio v. Clark → appliedPrecedent → Crawford v. Washington ⓘ

All labels observed (4)

How this entity was disambiguated Show

Statements (48)

How these facts were elicited Show

Referenced by (15)

How this entity was disambiguated

How these facts were elicited