Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR FI > Vol. 105
Abstract
I begin with a question of effectiveness: does the new Confrontation Clause doctrine effectively protect defendants with respect to the most im-portant types of problematic out-of-court statements? Although they leave much room for the introduction of hearsay in the immediate aftermath of crime generally, Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (together hereinafter Davis) are better opinions from that broad perspective than I had feared. The new doctrine now covers and provides substantial procedural protection for a very important class of problematic hearsay—statements made to government agents investigating past crime.
Recommended Citation
Robert P. Mosteller,
Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana: Beating Expectations,
105
Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions
6
(2006).
Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr_fi/vol105/iss1/26