Source: Foundation for Economic Education
by Rachel Chiu
“The Confrontation Clause bars certain out-of-court statements when the witness does not testify at trial and there is no opportunity for cross-examination. Although there are many situations in which different forms of out-of-court statements may be admissible, the circumstances triggering the Confrontation Clause often involve evidence that is high-stakes and accusatory. In these specific cases, a defendant’s freedom is on the line, and the statements in question can have a disproportionate and decisive impact in the absence of cross-examination. Compared to other criminal justice topics such as qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture, this issue receives far less attention, even though the risk to a defendant’s life, personal liberty, and property is great. The erosion of the Confrontation Clause deserves scrutiny, and the Supreme Court has recently signaled possible intervention to address the problem.” (04/21/26)