tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post6341076257963535038..comments2024-03-28T04:12:44.103-04:00Comments on The Confrontation Blog: Statements made in the absence of interrogationRichard D. Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08376534293308240526noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post-42707626645617979182014-12-20T13:50:39.959-05:002014-12-20T13:50:39.959-05:00Interesting take on interrogation and well cited c...Interesting take on interrogation and well cited cases. Darren-Chakerhttp://darrenchaker.usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post-4469634934817872592011-03-28T18:11:28.438-04:002011-03-28T18:11:28.438-04:00Well, I confess I've never much liked the emph...Well, I confess I've never much liked the emphasis on solemnity. Testimony <i>should</i> be solemn, but what if it is given in an un-solemn way? But as I understand what Scalia means, he's using solemnity in the sense of "made with an appreciation of the gravity of the consequences," and that's a fair enough requirement. I think it allows him to move towards a more anticipation-oriented definition while professing adherence to the purpose-oriented approach of .<br /><br />In any event, I think solemnity is supposed to be a marker of whether the statement is testimonial or not; if it is, then the Confrontation Clause applies, and otherwise the Clause does not apply. Reliability and the likely weight to be given by the jury really shouldn't enter in. I'm sure there are many non-testimonial statements that are less reliable than most testimonial statements, but the Confrontation Clause just doesn't apply.Richard D. Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09512800093689534416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post-22727303829805612342011-03-28T14:46:26.796-04:002011-03-28T14:46:26.796-04:00Applying extra constraints on "solemn declara...Applying extra constraints on "solemn declarations" rather than offhanded remarks seems odd at first, but I guess it can be justified because a "solemn declaration" will be given extra weight by a jury that may otherwise disregard an offhanded remark as unreliable. However, what if the prosecution attempted to introduce evidence of a "solemn declaration" but presented it in a way that made it seem no more reliable than an offhanded remark? Would the Confrontation Clause be implicated?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06069110453692862092noreply@blogger.com