Davis v. Washington
E821194
Davis v. Washington is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to law enforcement are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to the rule announced in Crawford v. Washington.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Davis v. Washington canonical | 7 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9799014 — 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: Davis v. Washington Context triple: [Crawford v. Washington, subsequentCaseInterpreting, Davis v. Washington]
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Crawford v. Washington
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.
-
C.
Blakely v. Washington
Blakely v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Apprendi rule to state sentencing guidelines, holding that any fact increasing a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
D.
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.
-
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: Davis v. Washington Target entity description: Davis v. Washington is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to law enforcement are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to the rule announced in Crawford v. Washington.
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Crawford v. Washington
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.
-
C.
Blakely v. Washington
Blakely v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Apprendi rule to state sentencing guidelines, holding that any fact increasing a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
D.
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.
-
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 (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Confrontation Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| appliedTo |
statements made during a 911 emergency call
ⓘ
statements made to police officers responding to a domestic disturbance ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional criminal procedure
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ evidence law ⓘ |
| citation | 547 U.S. 813 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| consolidatedWith | Hammon v. Indiana ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Confrontation Clause
ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
|
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2006-06-19 ⓘ |
| decisionType | precedential opinion ⓘ |
| holding |
statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency
ⓘ
statements are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency and the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution ⓘ |
| impact |
clarified scope of testimonial statements under the Confrontation Clause after Crawford
ⓘ
influenced later Confrontation Clause decisions such as Michigan v. Bryant ⓘ provided guidance on admissibility of 911 calls in criminal trials ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ David H. Souter ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| keyIssue |
application of Crawford v. Washington to 911 calls and on‑scene statements
ⓘ
whether certain statements to law enforcement are testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalTest | primary purpose test for distinguishing testimonial from nontestimonial statements ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Antonin Scalia ⓘ |
| petitioner | Adrian Martell Davis ⓘ |
| relatedCase | Hammon v. Indiana ⓘ |
| relatedPrecedent | Crawford v. Washington ⓘ |
| respondent |
State of Washington
ⓘ
linked to:
Washington State, United States
|
| result |
conviction in Davis’s case affirmed
ⓘ
conviction in Hammon’s case reversed and remanded ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | domestic violence prosecution ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2005 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Davis v. Washington Description of subject: Davis v. Washington is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to law enforcement are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to the rule announced in Crawford v. Washington.
Referenced by (7)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.