Law Commons^™

Confrontation As A Rule Of Production, Pamela R. Metzger

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Confrontation Clause is cost blind; the Supreme Court is not. In 2004, in Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court trumpeted its commitment to a procedural Confrontation Clause that required the prosecution to produce its witnesses in court, regardless of the cost or inconvenience. In 2007, in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Court retreated, offering courts, legislatures, and prosecutors an easy way to avoid Confrontation-laden trials. On the one hand, the Court warned that legislatures and courts could not “suspend the Confrontation Clause,” even if there were “other ways — and in some cases better ways — to challenge or verify” …

Confrontation Control, Pamela R. Metzger

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

After Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42 (2004), face-to-face confrontation between accused and accuser is the constitutionally normative mode of presentation for testimonial evidence. Yet, eight years into the Crawford revolution, courts routinely hold that counsel can waive a defendant's confrontation rights without even discussing the matter with the defendant. Why? Because counsel, not client, has the authority to decide whether to confront and cross-examine government witnesses.

This Essay, written as part of the Texas Tech Sixth Amendment Symposium, explores this peculiar and perplexing rule. If confrontation is essential to a constitutionally valid criminal trial, how can defense …