No, it was not against his rights. The Court said the main point of the teachers asking the boy questions was to make sure he was safe, not to gather evidence for a trial. It was an emergency. Because the boy was so young and the teachers were just trying to help in an informal chat, his statements weren't like official testimony and were allowed in court.

No, it wasn't against his rights, but the main opinion made it too complicated. It's simple: a 3-year-old is too young to try to be a formal 'witness' for a court case, and the teachers were obviously just trying to protect him. I'm worried the Court's reasoning is weakening the right to confront your accuser.

No, it wasn't against his rights, but the 'primary purpose' test is silly. The only statements that should be blocked are formal, serious ones, like a sworn statement to the police. A little kid talking to his teacher at school is not formal at all, so it's not the kind of 'testimony' the Constitution is worried about.

The Court ruled that using L.P.'s statements did not violate the Constitution because the main purpose of L.P.'s talk with his teachers was not to get evidence to prosecute Clark. There are a few key reasons for this. First, L.P. made the statements during an ongoing emergency situation involving suspected child abuse. The teachers' questions and L.P.'s answers were mainly focused on figuring out what was happening and keeping L.P. safe, not building a criminal case. Second, the teachers never told L.P. his statements would be used to arrest or punish Clark, and a 3-year-old like L.P. wouldn't be thinking about his statements being used in court. Third, the conversation was informal and happened naturally in the preschool lunchroom and classroom, not like a formal police interrogation. Finally, L.P.'s super young age makes it extremely unlikely he intended his comments to be used as evidence in place of him testifying. Historically, statements like this were allowed in court.

I agree with the Court's ruling that L.P.'s statements were not "testimonial" evidence and therefore okay under the Confrontation Clause. A 3-year-old like L.P. simply is not capable of making statements with the purpose of providing testimony against someone. The teachers were focused on keeping L.P. safe, not prosecuting Clark. The conversation also lacked the formal, serious qualities that make statements into "testimony." That's all we need to decide this case. However, I disagree with some of the majority opinion's reasoning, which I think shows hostility to the important protections the Confrontation Clause provides to accused persons, as interpreted in the Crawford case. But the bottom line is the Court reached the right result here.

I agree with the Court that using L.P.'s statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause, but I have a different reason why. In my view, whether statements are "testimonial" should not depend on the purpose of the conversation, for talks with either police or private people. Instead, I would look at whether the statements were made in a formal, solemn way that makes them like testifying in court. L.P.'s statements to his teachers don't qualify, because they were made informally at preschool, not in a formal setting like a police interrogation. There's also no sign L.P.'s statements were offered to avoid him testifying in court. So under the test I think is proper, there's no Confrontation Clause problem here.

An out-of-court statement is testimonial if "in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the `primary purpose'of the conversation was to `creat [e] an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.'"

Statements made to someone who is not principally charged with uncovering and prosecuting criminal behavior are significantly less likely to be testimonial than statements given to law enforcement officers

Id.[6] A statement cannot fall within the Confrontation Clause unless its primary purpose was testimonial.

" `Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency'"whereas" `[t] hey are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the …

Ultimately, the Court held that "[b] ecause neither the child nor his teachers had the primary purpose of assisting in Clark's prosecution, the child's statements do not implicate the Confrontation Clause and therefore were admissible at trial."

AW is a very young child, and the Supreme Court said in Clark that "[s] tatements by very young children will rarely, if ever, implicate the Confrontation Clause."

Thus, the high Court has adopted the "primary purpose" test for determining whether a statement is testimonial in nature

—indicating the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit "... the introduction of out-of-court statements that would have been admissible in a criminal case at the time of the founding

—concluded that a three-year-old boy's statements to his preschool teachers about who had abused him were not testimonial.

No. The introduction of L.P.'s statements at trial did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements were not testimonial. In determining whether a statement is testimonial, courts must objectively evaluate all relevant circumstances to ascertain the 'primary purpose' of the conversation. Here, the primary purpose was not to create evidence for prosecution but to address an ongoing emergency and protect a vulnerable child from harm. Several factors support this conclusion: 1) the conversation occurred during an ongoing emergency involving child abuse; 2) the teachers' questions were aimed at identifying and ending the threat, not gathering evidence; 3) the conversation was informal and spontaneous in a preschool setting; 4) L.P.'s very young age makes it extremely unlikely he intended his statements to be a substitute for trial testimony; and 5) statements to non-law enforcement personnel, like teachers, are significantly less likely to be testimonial than statements to police. The teachers' mandatory reporting obligations do not automatically convert them into agents of law enforcement for Confrontation Clause purposes.

No. The statements were not testimonial, but the majority's analysis needlessly complicates the issue and weakens the Confrontation Clause jurisprudence established in Crawford v. Washington. The case is straightforward: L.P.'s age makes him incapable of forming the purpose to create testimony, and the teachers' primary purpose was clearly to protect the child, not to build a criminal case. The majority's suggestion that the primary purpose test is merely a 'necessary, but not always sufficient' condition is a dangerous dictum that has no support in precedent and improperly shifts the burden to the defendant to prove historical exceptions to confrontation.

No. The statements were properly admitted, but the majority's 'primary purpose' test is an ahistorical fiction that should not be applied. The proper inquiry for whether a statement is testimonial turns on its solemnity and formality. L.P.’s statements to his teachers at a preschool were not made under circumstances with sufficient indicia of solemnity—such as being contained in formalized materials like an affidavit or resulting from a formalized dialogue—to qualify as testimonial under the original meaning of the Confrontation Clause. As the statements bear no resemblance to the historical abuses the Clause was designed to prevent, their admission was constitutional.

The introduction of L.P.'s statements to his preschool teachers did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements were not made with the primary purpose of creating evidence for prosecution. I reach this conclusion for several reasons. First, L.P.'s statements occurred in the context of an ongoing emergency involving suspected child abuse. The teachers' questions and L.P.'s answers were primarily aimed at identifying and ending the threat. Second, there is no indication that the primary purpose of the conversation was to gather evidence for Clark's prosecution. At no point did the teachers inform L.P. that his answers would be used to arrest or punish Clark. L.P. never hinted that he intended his statements to be used by the police or prosecutors. Third, the conversation between L.P. and his teachers was informal and spontaneous, taking place in the preschool lunchroom and classroom. This was nothing like the formalized station-house questioning in Crawford. Finally, L.P.'s age fortifies the conclusion that his statements were not testimonial, because it is extremely unlikely that a 3-year-old child in L.P.'s position would intend his statements to be a substitute for trial testimony. As a historical matter, moreover, there is strong evidence that statements made in circumstances like these were admissible at common law.

I agree with the Court's holding that L.P.'s statements to his preschool teachers were not testimonial and therefore admissible under the Confrontation Clause. L.P.'s primary purpose was certainly not to invoke the coercive machinery of the State against Clark. His age refutes the notion that he is capable of forming such a purpose. The teachers' primary purpose was not to establish facts for later prosecution, but rather to protect L.P. and remove him from harm's way. The conversation also lacked the requisite solemnity to be considered testimonial. That is all that is necessary to decide this case. However, I write separately to protest the Court's hostility to the Confrontation Clause as interpreted in Crawford v. Washington. Today's opinion distorts the primary purpose test and places the burden on defendants to prove that unconfronted statements were excluded at the time of the founding. This gets the burden precisely backwards and represents a veiled attempt to return to the flawed reliability test of Ohio v. Roberts. But the good news is there are not enough votes to overturn Crawford, and the dicta in today's opinion are just that - dicta.

I agree with the Court that the admission of L.P.'s statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause, but I would reach that conclusion through a different analysis. In my view, the primary purpose test is just as disconnected from history for statements to private persons as for statements to law enforcement. I would assess whether a statement bears sufficient indicia of solemnity to qualify as testimonial, looking at factors such as formality, use of Miranda warnings, custodial setting, and attempts to evade confrontation. Here, L.P.'s statements do not bear sufficient indicia of solemnity because they were elicited informally by his preschool teachers, not through formalized dialogue or while in custody. There is also no indication the statements were offered to evade confrontation. Therefore, their admission does not implicate the Confrontation Clause under the proper historical test.

Ohio v. Clark

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot