This essay seeks to explain and help remedy the confusion generated by Crawford v. Washington, the landmark Supreme Court confrontation clause case. Many have taken the Crawford line of cases, the most recent of which came down this past June, to task for lack of clarity and coherence. My thesis is that the primary source of the Crawford cases’ ambiguity is their poor handling of four key mental state questions. I argue that clearer treatment of these is the way out of the current morass. I use criminal law’s treatment of mental state as a foil against which to compare the Crawford cases’ treatment of mental states.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/kevin_mcmunigal/1/