Crawford v. Washington
E237787
Confrontation Clause case
United States Supreme Court case
criminal procedure case
landmark decision
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Crawford v. Washington canonical | 2 |
| Michael Crawford v. Washington | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2128607 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Crawford v. Washington Context triple: [Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, interpretedByCase, Crawford v. Washington]
-
A.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
B.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
-
C.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
D.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
E.
De Jonge v. Oregon
De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Crawford v. Washington Target entity description: Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
-
A.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
B.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
-
C.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
D.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
E.
De Jonge v. Oregon
De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Confrontation Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
United States constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal constitutional procedure ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 2003-11-10 ⓘ |
| citation | 541 U.S. 36 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Sandra Day O’Connor
ⓘ
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
ⓘ
surface form:
Confrontation Clause
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| country | United States of America ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2004-03-08 ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Crawford v. Washington
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Michael Crawford v. Washington
|
| holding |
Testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant
ⓘ
The reliability test of Ohio v. Roberts is inconsistent with the text and history of the Confrontation Clause for testimonial statements ⓘ |
| impact |
limited the admissibility of testimonial hearsay in criminal prosecutions
ⓘ
reshaped modern Confrontation Clause jurisprudence ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ David H. Souter ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalRule | Out-of-court testimonial statements by witnesses are barred under the Confrontation Clause unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Antonin Scalia ⓘ |
| originatingCourt |
Washington State courts
ⓘ
surface form:
Washington state courts
|
| overruledPrecedentInPart | Ohio v. Roberts ⓘ |
| page | 36 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Michael Crawford ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent |
Washington State, United States
ⓘ
surface form:
State of Washington
|
| subsequentCaseInterpreting |
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
ⓘ
Davis v. Washington ⓘ Giles v. California ⓘ Hammon v. Indiana ⓘ Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts ⓘ Michigan v. Bryant ⓘ Ohio v. Clark ⓘ |
| topic |
criminal trials
ⓘ
evidence law ⓘ hearsay ⓘ |
| volume | 541 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 2004 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Crawford v. Washington Description of subject: Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
this entity surface form:
Michael Crawford v. Washington