Crawford v. Washington
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
14,479 later cases cite Crawford v. Washington; 1,599 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Crawford v. Washington?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The district court applied Roberts rather than Crawford because Roberts was the clearly established law when the state court ruled.
Dorchy v. Jones · Eastern District of Michigan · filed
On March 8, 2004, the United States Supreme Court overruled Ohio v. Roberts and held that out-of-court statements which are testimonial in nature are barred by the Confrontation Clause unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness, regardless of whether such statements are deemed reliable by the court. See Crawford v. Washington , — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1365-74, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Thus, if the Michigan Court of Appeals were to rule the same way today, its decision would unquestionably be contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. At the time of Petitioner’s direct appeal, however, Ohio v. Roberts was controlling law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tenth Circuit held Crawford nonretroactive in Brown's federal habeas proceeding.
Brown v. Uphoff · Tenth Circuit · filed
Accordingly, we conclude that Cmivford is not a watershed decision and is, therefore, not retroactively applicable to Brown’s initial habeas petition.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Crawford to probation-revocation proceedings.
Marsh v. State · Indiana Court of Appeals · filed
As we interpret Isaac, the rationale underlying that decision was not affected by Crawford. Thus, Isaac is still binding authority on this court and we decline Marsh's invitation to extend the holding in Crawford to probation revocation proceedings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Crawford did not apply retroactively in postconviction proceedings involving a conviction final before Crawford.
People v. Edwards · Colorado Court of Appeals · filed
However, the question whether Crawford applies retroactively in postconviction proceedings involving convictions that became final before it was announced is an issue of first impression in Colorado. We conclude that Crawford is not applicable here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Crawford inapplicable to community-supervision revocation proceedings.
Billy Don Smart v. State · Texas Ninth Court of Appeals · filed
Crawford addressed an out-of-court testimonial statement offered in a criminal trial, and is not directly applicable in this revocation proceeding.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Northern District of Iowa held Crawford's confrontation requirements inapplicable to the final selection phase of a capital sentencing proceeding.
United States v. Johnson · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa · filed
Thus, Johnson has not convinced the court that the Confrontation Clause also applies in the final phase of these trifurcated proceedings, even assuming it would apply to the eligibility phase. ... The Jordan decision and the Bodkins decision both cast their analyses of whether the Confrontation Clause was implicated by admission of hearsay evidence in either the eligibility phase or the selection/penalty phase in terms of whether or not the requirements of Crawford applied to the phase in question.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ohio Court of Appeals held Crawford unavailable because Hayden's conviction was final before Crawford.
State v. Hayden, Unpublished Decision (8-5-2005) · Ohio Court of Appeals · filed
Hayden contends that he was granted a new constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses in Crawford v. Washington. ... We disagree. ... Hayden’s conviction has been final and has not been pending on direct review since his appeal was dismissed with prejudice by the Ohio Supreme Court in 1992. ... Thus, there is no new constitutional right that could apply retroactively to Hayden’s claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit held Crawford inapplicable to supervised-release revocation hearings.
United States v. Mary A. Kirby · Sixth Circuit · filed
We agree with the Second and Eighth Circuits and hold that Crawford does not apply to revocation of supervised release hearings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The California Court of Appeal held Crawford nonretroactive in Moore's habeas proceeding.
In Re Moore · California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One · filed
After reviewing the briefing and record filed in this matter, we requested supplemental briefing on whether Crawford applies retroactively in this case, or at all in a habeas corpus proceeding. We conclude it does not apply retroactively in this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The D.C. Circuit held Crawford inapplicable to parole-revocation proceedings.
Ash, Wilbur v. Reilly, Edward F. · D.C. Circuit · filed
For these reasons, the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, handed down after Jackson, did not deprive Jackson of its precedential effect, as the magistrate judge supposed. Crawford v. Washington was a criminal case decided under the Sixth Amendment. ... The other circuits that have considered whether Crawford v. Washington applies to parole revocation proceedings have concluded that it does not.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Crawford inapplicable to probation-revocation proceedings.
Russell v. State · Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal · filed
This appears to be a case of first impression in Florida but the thrust of the decisional law from other jurisdictions on this point leads to the conclusion that Crawford does not apply to probation revocation proceedings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit held that Crawford did not extend the Confrontation Clause to sentencing proceedings.
United States v. Anastasios S. Katzopoulos · Sixth Circuit · filed
This failure has not gone unnoticed by this and other Circuits that have all determined that Crawford does not affect the longstanding principle. “Because Crawford was concerned only with testimonial evidence introduced at trial, Crawford does not change our long-settled rule that the confrontation clause does not apply in sentencing proceedings.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Fifth Circuit held Crawford nonretroactive in Lave's federal habeas proceeding.
Lave v. Dretke · Fifth Circuit · filed
The rule announced in Crawford does not implicate the fundamental fairness and accuracy of criminal proceedings. ... Because Crawford does not apply to this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to stay the proceedings while Lave presented his Crawford claim to a state habeas court.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit held Crawford's confrontation rule does not apply at sentencing.
United States v. Wisdom · Sixth Circuit · filed
In Stone, we held that “Crawford does not change our long-settled rule that the confrontation clause does not apply in sentencing proceedings.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Seventh Circuit held Crawford nonretroactive and applied Roberts instead.
Lor, Zong v. Jenkins, Larry · Seventh Circuit · filed
We recently held that Crawford is not retroactive, see Bintz, and so Roberts continues to govern in this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit held Crawford nonretroactive and evaluated the habeas claim under Roberts.
Winn v. Renico · Sixth Circuit · filed
Crawford, however, does not apply retroactively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Crawford inapplicable to community-control revocation proceedings.
State v. Crace, Unpublished Decision (6-13-2006) · Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals · filed
Our research does not reveal any Ohio caselaw applying Crawford to community control revocation hearings. Courts in other states, however, have addressed the issue and found Crawford indeed does not apply in such proceedings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court upheld the state court’s refusal to apply Crawford retroactively and treated retroactivity as settled.
Call v. Polk · Western District of North Carolina · filed
Judge Helms’ decision was not contrary to and did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Lave v. Dretke, 444 F.3d 333 (5th Cir.2006) (Crawford does not apply retroactively);
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held Crawford nonretroactive on collateral review.
Ex Parte Keith · Texas Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
Because Crawford is not retroactive, the relief sought by the applicant is not available to him.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Crawford and the Sixth Amendment confrontation right do not apply at preliminary examinations.
Sheriff v. Witzenburg · Supreme Court of Nevada · filed
We conclude that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Crawford do not apply at a preliminary examination.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court held that Crawford announced a new procedural rule that does not apply retroactively on collateral review.
Whorton v. Bockting · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Because Crawford announced a “new rule” and because it is clear and undisputed that the rule is procedural and not substantive, that rule cannot be applied in this collateral attack on respondent’s conviction unless it is a “ ‘watershed rul[e] of criminal procedure’ implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” ... In sum, we hold that Crawford announced a “new rule” of criminal procedure and that this rule does not fall within the Teague exception for watershed rules.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Crawford did not extend the Confrontation Clause to pretrial-detention proceedings.
Godwin v. Johnson · Florida First District Court of Appeal · filed
Instead, as the respondents argue, Crawford did not change the types of proceedings where the confrontation clause does or does not apply. Instead, it provides guidance on how the clause is to be implemented when it is applicable.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court expressly declined to extend Crawford to probation-revocation proceedings.
State v. Palmer · Kansas Court of Appeals · filed
it is only logical to decline to extend the right to confront witnesses as provided in Crawford to defendants in probation revocation proceedings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Arizona held Crawford's confrontation rule inapplicable to rebuttal testimony at a capital sentencing hearing.
State v. Tucker · Supreme Court of Arizona · filed
Tucker’s Crawford claim also fails. “[T]he Confrontation Clause does not apply to rebuttal testimony at a sentencing hearing because (1) the penalty phase is not a criminal prosecution, (2) historical practices support the use of out-of-court statements in sentencing, and (3) the sentencing body requires complete information to make its determination.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit held Whorton foreclosed retroactive application of Crawford in Vasquez's habeas case.
Vasquez v. Jones · Sixth Circuit · filed
Vasquez also argues that Crawford should be applied retroactively to his case, but the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Whorton v. Bockting, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 1177, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007), forecloses this argument.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The District of Arizona applied Whorton and held Crawford unavailable in Bible's collateral attack.
Bible v. Schriro · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Because Roberts was the controlling precedent at the time, and because Crawford cannot be applied retroactively, this Court reviews the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision under the “unreasonable application” standard of § 2254(d)(1).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Crawford to pretrial suppression hearings.
State v. Miller, 07 Ca 11 (1-11-2008) · Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals · filed
Upon our review of Crawford and its progeny, we decline to extend the rule to pretrial suppression hearings under the circumstances of the case sub judice.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court held Crawford unavailable on habeas review of a conviction final before Crawford.
Rodriguez v. Superintendent, Collins Correctional Facility · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York · filed
The Supreme Court has held that Crawford does not apply retroactively on habeas review. ... Accordingly, “clearly established precedent” relevant to petitioner’s claim does not include Crawford.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court held Crawford did not apply retroactively to Smith's habeas petition.
Smith v. Petkovich · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · filed
Thus, Crawford does not apply here, and, in any case, it is not retroactive in its effect.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eleventh Circuit applied binding circuit precedent refusing to extend Crawford to sentencing proceedings.
United States v. Selestino Sanchez, Sr. · Eleventh Circuit · filed
This contention is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Cantellano, 430 F.3d 1142, 1146 (11th Cir. 2005). Cantellano rejected specifically the argument raised by Defendant that Crawford v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004), should apply to make impermissible the use of out-of-court statements at sentencing.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit recognized that Whorton overruled circuit precedent and held Crawford nonretroactive in federal habeas proceedings.
Grayson v. Carey · Ninth Circuit · filed
The Supreme Court has since overruled that case, holding that Crawford does not apply retroactively in federal habeas proceedings. ... If the district court concludes that there is no procedural bar, it may apply Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), to Grayson’s Confrontation Clause claim in the first instance.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Connecticut Appellate Court held Crawford's confrontation rule does not extend to a parent in a neglect proceeding.
In Re Tayler F. · Connecticut Appellate Court · filed
Thus, the right to confrontation as set forth in Crawford, which applies to the sixth amendment rights of an accused, does not extend to a parent in a neglect hearing.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit held Crawford nonretroactive on collateral review.
Stringer v. Harrison · Ninth Circuit · filed
The rule set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), does not apply retroactively on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit held Crawford's rule nonretroactive on collateral review.
United States v. Curtis McDonald · Sixth Circuit · filed
As Crawford may not be retroactively applied to McDonald’s case, McDonald is unable to satisfy the requirements of § 2244, and this Court therefore cannot grant McDonald leave to pursue another § 2255 motion.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Crawford did not expand the confrontation right to sentencing hearings.
Harper v. Commonwealth · Court of Appeals of Virginia · filed
Our review of the relevant decisions persuades us that, though Crawford substantially changed the way courts must analyze claims under the Confrontation Clause, neither Crawford nor its progeny have expanded the applicable scope of the right of confrontation to sentencing hearings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court expressly declined to extend Crawford to probation-revocation proceedings.
State v. Walker · Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
Like these others courts, we decline to extend Crawford to probation revocation proceedings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held Crawford nonretroactive on collateral review.
Gathers v. United States · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · filed
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision that Crawford may not be applied retroactively on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Second Circuit applied Whorton and evaluated the habeas confrontation claim under Roberts rather than Crawford.
Bierenbaum v. Graham · Second Circuit · filed
In Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 421, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007), the Supreme Court held that Crawford announced a new rule that would not apply retroactively on collateral review. ... As of 2002 when his claim was adjudicated on the merits, and 2003 when his conviction became final, Ohio v. Roberts governed his claim. Thus, Bierenbaum’s challenge to the admission of Katz’s statements must be evaluated under Roberts.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tenth Circuit held Crawford unavailable retroactively on collateral review.
Weedman v. Hartley · Tenth Circuit · filed
Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent establishes that Crawford does not apply retroactively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Texas Fourth Court of Appeals held Crawford inapplicable to a presentence investigation used in noncapital judge sentencing.
Alonzo Collins v. State · Texas Fourth Court of Appeals · filed
However, “when a PSI is used in a non-capital case in which the defendant has elected to have the judge determine sentencing, Crawford does not apply.” ... Acknowledging that Stringer applies to this case, Collins “respectfully argue[s] the decision is flawed.” Because we have no authority to overrule the Court of Criminal Appeals, we overrule this issue.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The District of New Mexico held Crawford did not extend Confrontation Clause protections to detention hearings.
United States v. Hernandez · U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico · filed
The Court therefore concludes that Crawford v. Washington did not extend Confrontation-Clause protections to detention hearings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit held Crawford unavailable because the conviction was final before Crawford and the case was on collateral review.
MEROLILLO v. Yates · Ninth Circuit · filed
Crawford is not controlling here. Because Merolillo did not file a petition for certiorari, his conviction became final on April 29, 2003. ... Crawford is not retroactively applied to cases on collateral review. Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 421 (2007).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The First Circuit held the Crawford confrontation right inapplicable to the pretrial maritime-jurisdiction determination in this case.
United States v. Mitchell-Hunter · First Circuit · filed
Finally, recent Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Confrontation Clause has not extended its reach beyond the context of trial. The question posed in Crawford was whether, in addition to the right to cross-examine witnesses whose testimony was elicited at trial, the defendant has the right to cross-examine declarants who produced evidence prior to trial that later would be introduced at trial.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
West Virginia's highest court held its adoption of Crawford nonretroactive and prospective only.
State v. Kennedy · Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · filed
Therefore, as a collateral attack on his conviction, our recognition that Crawford and Mechling state a “new rule” of criminal procedure and our holding that it should be held non-retroaetive dictates the measure of relief afforded to Kennedy. ... Therefore, these “new rules” of criminal procedure afford him no relief.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eleventh Circuit held Crawford inapplicable to a pretrial determination of extraterritorial maritime jurisdiction.
United States v. Christopher Patrick Campbell · Eleventh Circuit · filed
Campbell argues that the admission of the certification of the Secretary of State without the ability to cross-examine a Haitian witness violated his right under the Confrontation Clause, but that argument fails. The Confrontation Clause does not bar the admission of hearsay to make a pretrial determination of jurisdiction when that hearsay does not pertain to an element of the offense. Because the stateless nature of Campbell’s vessel was not an element of his offense to be proved at trial, the admission of the certification did not violate his right to confront the witnesses against him. The Confrontation Clause provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . .” U.S. Const. Amend. VI. In Crawford, the Supreme Court ruled that the Confrontation Clause bars the admission of a testimonial statement by “a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Nevada held Crawford unavailable in Atkins's collateral attack because his conviction was final before Crawford.
Atkins (Sterling) v. State (Death Penalty-Pc) · Supreme Court of Nevada · filed
Second, Crawford does not apply retroactively on collateral review of a conviction, such as Atkins', that was final before Crawford was decided.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit applied pre-Crawford law because Crawford is nonretroactive on collateral review.
Floyd Mayes v. Jeff Premo · Ninth Circuit · filed
When the Oregon Court of Appeals adjudicated Mayes’s claim, Ohio v. Roberts provided the “general approach” for answering Confrontation Clause objections. ... Crawford is not retroactive on collateral review. Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 421, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit held Crawford unavailable because Woods's conviction became final before Crawford.
Dwayne Woods v. Stephen Sinclair · Ninth Circuit · filed
Woods’s conviction became final before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Crawford, so we apply the clearly established pre-Crawford Supreme Court law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Crawford did not extend the Confrontation Clause to pretrial suppression hearings.
State v. Zamzow · Wisconsin Court of Appeals · filed
Zamzow's acknowledgement is completely correct— Crawford did not address pretrial hearings, in any way. Zamzow fails to identify any basis for concluding that Frambs is no longer good law; nor are we able to identify such basis. Frambs remains good law, and based on Frambs, as well as the cited Supreme Court precedent, we conclude the Confrontation Clause simply does not apply to pretrial hearings such as the suppression hearing at issue in this case
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Crawford did not extend the confrontation right to suppression hearings.
State v. Glenn T. Zamzow · Supreme Court of Wisconsin · filed
The Court never nullified that distinction in Crawford or any subsequent Confrontation Clause case, and we will not adopt such a construction here. ... In light of the longstanding principle that the Confrontation Clause protects a trial right, we conclude the Confrontation Clause does not require confrontation of witnesses at suppression hearings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit held Crawford nonretroactive and applied Roberts to Issa’s habeas claim.
Ahmad Issa v. Margaret Bradshaw · Sixth Circuit · filed
Crawford , however, is not retroactive.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court held Crawford unavailable because the conviction was final before Crawford and applied Roberts.
Pogosyan v. Jaques · District of Colorado · filed
However, Crawford was decided after Petitioner’s conviction was final, and the Supreme Court has held that it does not apply retroactively. See Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 421 (2007). The Court thus agrees with the parties that Roberts provides the relevant clearly established federal law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Texas Second Court of Appeals held Crawford inapplicable to a presentence investigation in noncapital judge sentencing.
Brandon Jesse Rodriguez v. the State of Texas · Texas Second Court of Appeals · filed
In any event, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “when a PSI is used in a non-capital case in which the defendant has elected to have the judge determine sentencing, Crawford does not apply.” ... “That is precisely what occurred in this case.” ... Accordingly, we overrule Rodriguez’s sole point.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals held Crawford's confrontation protections inapplicable to sentencing hearings.
State of Tennessee v. Bryant Donaldson, Jr. · Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
“The admission of testimonial hearsay at trial, without a showing of unavailability and an opportunity to cross-examine, generally violates a defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses.” State v. Harris, No. M2008-01685-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 1871919, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 30, 2009) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50 (2004)). However, this court has repeatedly held that “the Confrontation Clause is not applicable to sentencing hearings.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit held Crawford unavailable in Hogan's collateral attack.
Michael Ray Hogan v. Jeremy Bean · Ninth Circuit · filed
However, Crawford was not made retroactive on collateral review. ... We therefore apply Roberts as the standard here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Crawford v. Washington and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace