When a person becomes a criminal defendant they are granted constitutional rights that can be used to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The result of the Crawford v Washington case defined the standard for determining the admission of hearsay statements in cases permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. In conclusion, the Crawford v. Washington case impacted the Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision in Briscoe v. Commonwealth and Cypress v. Commonwealth. The defense attorneys and prosecutors in Virginia should proceed in caution of the sixth amendment with confronting witnesses.
Keywords, Briscoe v. Commonwealth, Cypress v. Commonwealth, Crawford v. Washington, Sixth Amendment
The Supreme Court of the …show more content…
Commonwealth and Cypress v. Commonwealth When a person is charged with a crime they become a criminal defendant that obtains constitutional rights. The rights control how the government is allowed to investigate, prosecute, and punish the criminal behavior. The government must prove there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before conviction and punishment of the crime. The rights of a criminal defendant are stated in the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Eighth amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States holding in the Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S 36 (2004) impacted the Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision in Briscoe v. Commonwealth and Cypress v. Commonwealth. In 2004 The United States Supreme Court’s decision from Crawford v. Washington reformulated the standard for determining the admission of hearsay arguments in criminal cases under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. In conclusion, the court described that cross-examination is required to admit prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have became unavailable. As a result of the Crawford v. Washington case, the Supreme Court’s decisions in the case impacted additional cases, such as Briscoe v. Commonwealth and Cypress v. Commonwealth. In 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments of testimonial statements in the Briscoe case,
Keywords, Briscoe v. Commonwealth, Cypress v. Commonwealth, Crawford v. Washington, Sixth Amendment
The Supreme Court of the …show more content…
Commonwealth and Cypress v. Commonwealth When a person is charged with a crime they become a criminal defendant that obtains constitutional rights. The rights control how the government is allowed to investigate, prosecute, and punish the criminal behavior. The government must prove there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before conviction and punishment of the crime. The rights of a criminal defendant are stated in the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Eighth amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States holding in the Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S 36 (2004) impacted the Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision in Briscoe v. Commonwealth and Cypress v. Commonwealth. In 2004 The United States Supreme Court’s decision from Crawford v. Washington reformulated the standard for determining the admission of hearsay arguments in criminal cases under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. In conclusion, the court described that cross-examination is required to admit prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have became unavailable. As a result of the Crawford v. Washington case, the Supreme Court’s decisions in the case impacted additional cases, such as Briscoe v. Commonwealth and Cypress v. Commonwealth. In 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments of testimonial statements in the Briscoe case,