WPC^9 ng'k%Zh24NҺSvSMl& дUP " )&<\2ow 3-RE= X7ϜߗyEߨtN>.^*z±Lv£T$cߠމXGc'{?¹ܠ]n|S2F:DbyL֌~,S"V̍'K2Izrj@Pb~)Ah(:;Vj$6C~@Ϣ!DY熲d:WZSi۸D UJ؜j{uឬ^ܾƟ4E((:._+iPTHqxx^uR*P;emvHy̗5ӭ)fZ-9mo AΗ>DFKnx=SL7qճ^ ;7JzbM~s3XUQ> 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0o 0` 0N 0< 0$ 0  0 0 0 0 0p 0L 0( 0 0 0 0 0 0w 0U 00! 0 " 0<" 0" 0# 0:$ 0Y$ 0JH% 1s% 0& 1e& 7;' 1eI' 7' 1e' 7!(/( 0?(#(UCN+ % ,M,(,N>, 1u@, 72,^ ,w,4, - m - 0+c$- 72- 0w- 0d0. 0.bZ/ 0 b/ 00b0 00 0D1#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2 BA9\  `&Times New Roman' Confrontation Clause Analysis  Pat Paulson"0Mat zWERLING .   2P+M 0_level1  , 8.4 <DL!823  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level4   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level5   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level6   /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level7  4 /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level9   ,"h hhDL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levsl1  , 8.4 <DL!823  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl4   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl5   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl6   /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl7  4 /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl9   ,"h hhDL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levnl1  , 8.4 <DL!823   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl4   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl5   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl6   /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl7  4 /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl9   ,"h hhDL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  64 '4Heading 1XXX       XXX<:Default Para<8A :Envelope Add ` ,"< <<DL!,  5+ 4 <DL!50> .Footer !>44 <DL!>:8Page Number<X[ :Body Text In X  2( <DL!2  5+ 4 <DL!5 X . ,Title     337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)(2`u$ .Y!..      0XXX0XXXX0X   35;AGMSY_11.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.' i. 35;AGMSY_2A.1.i.1.a.i.1.a.) i. 35;AGMSY_3A.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.+ i.#|x(Y$..      0XXX0XXXX0XCENTRAL OFFICE0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular0X3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)5i)[p6 OV.6AT\WPU(;3$2#  0  .3  0  %1)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#- -($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#- -((3ə$ .Y!..      0XXX0XXXX0X   4   0  (#$  0   declarants"prosecutoriallyCromer Geo L.J.PirwaniKilday nontestimonialGonsalvesCorellaMoscatN.Y.S.WnSisavathWahlertRinconSisivathBahenaSaffoldTaulton ForeseeabilityWeilandParleSeijasAvilaWilmoreHallquistEvRoldanCastilleThomaimmediat[elyMonterrosoJiles EvidHoulihan f.n.HarlessTowneArsdallAngulo SVPArandaONeilBrutonMorriseyGagnonScarpelliWinsonArreola MakiU.S.App.LEXISApprendi S.CtKulshrethaSakariasBocktingUphoffDorchyMurilloDretke COACorey U.S.Dist.LEXISSummerlinNoonanMcKeownOScannlainHiracheta AppxO'ScannlainAEDPAGreenbergerPartidaLedesma Duy Tran*Cal.App.Unpub.LEXISFenstererJurado USSCIll.AppStancilHammondeclarantBlakelyCal.AppTeagueWhorton L.Ed d .Y!..      0XXX0XXXX0X  _   0XXXX0RQX0X@@, , FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @@[["TRAININGSEMINAR E @@ZZ"#0XXQ0R#0X0XJanuary27,2007 :  #0XX0#0Ӟ X0X#0XX 0Ӟ$#0$ X0X@@r r  ConfrontationClauseAnalysis 1  @@= = afterCrawford_v.Washington_ t @@##0XX 0$m#0Ӟ X0XRobertCalhoun 6 @@' ' ProfessorofLaw,GoldenGateLawSchool / @@yy$January2005  ( @@ Updated January2007 # @@AA!Alan_Siraco_,_FDAP_#Ӟ  0Ӟ##XX Ӟ#  $  Ӟ XXD800XXdd8TABLEOFAUTHORITIES     FEDERALCASES      2 XBarberv.Page(1968)   X ` ` 2 2 390U.S.719A. 16    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XBocktingv.Bayer(9thCir.2005)    X ` ` 2 2 399F.3d1010A.  18 x   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XBrownv.Uphoff(10thCir.2004) j   X ` ` 2 2 381F.3d1219A.  18 c   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XBrutonv.U.S.(1968) U   X ` ` 2 2 391U.S.123]]?. 2,3 N   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XCaliforniav.Green(1970) @  X ` ` 2 2 399U.S.149#XX Ӟ#Ӟ XX55B. 2 9  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XCartyv.Nelson(9thCir.2005) +{  X ` ` 2 2 2005_U.S.App_.LEXIS27407A.00*16 $t  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XCoreyv.U.S.(D.Maine2005) f  X ` ` 2 2 2005_U.S.Dist_.LEXIS19845A.$$+18 _  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XCrawfordv.Washington(2004) Q  X ` ` 2 2 541U.S.36II=.< < passim J  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XDavisv.Alaska(1974) <  X ` ` 2 2 415U.S.30855B. 4  5  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XDavisv.Washington(2006) "'  X ` ` 2 2 547U.S.______,2006DAR7615==<./48,11 #    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XDelawarev.Fensterer(1985) %!"  X ` ` 2 2 474U.S.1555B.< < 3 & "#  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XDelawarev.VanArsdall(1986) (#%  X ` ` 2 2 475U.S.673]]?. 1,4 )$&  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 X +&( Dorchyv.Jones(6thCir.2005)   X ` ` 2 2 398F.3d783A. 18   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XGagnonv.Scarpelli(1973)   X ` ` 2 2 411U.S.778A. 15   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XGriffithv.Kentucky(1987)    X ` ` 2 2 479U.S.314A. 17    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XHammondv.Indiana(2006) q    X ` ` 2 2 547U.S.______,2006DAR7615@./48 j   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XLavev.Dretke(5thCir.2005) \   X ` ` 2 2 416F.3d372A. 18 U   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XMorriseyv.Brewer(1972) G  X ` ` 2 2 408U.S.471A. 15 @  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XMungov.Duncan(2ndCir.2004) 2  X ` ` 2 2 393F.3d327A. 18 +{  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XMurillov.Frank(7thCir.2005) m  X ` ` 2 2 402F.3d786A. 18 f  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XNelsonv._O'Neil_(1971) X  X ` ` 2 2 402U.S.62255B. 3 Q  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XOhiov.Roberts(1980) C  X ` ` 2 2 448U.S.5655B.< < 1 <  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XParlev.Runnels(9thCir.2004) !.  X ` ` 2 2 387F.3d1030A.  12 "'  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPennsylvaniav.Ritchie(1987) $ !  X ` ` 2 2 480U.S.39A.< < 16 %!"  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XShepardv.UnitedStates(2005) '#$  X ` ` 2 2 544U.S._____[161_L.Ed_.2d205,[125S.Ct.1254[2005 (#% U.S.LEXIS2205]A.||!17 )$&  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 X +&( Smithv.Illinois(1968)   X ` ` 2 2 390U.S.12955B. 4   XSpencerv.State(Tex.App.2005)  Ѐ162S.W.3d877,881L L C!.ZZ*6,11#XX Ӟ# #Ӟ XXԈ  9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XTeaguev.Lane(1989)    X ` ` 2 2 489U.S.288A. 18    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XTennesseev.Street(1985) q    X ` ` 2 2 Ӏ471U.S.409#XX Ӟ##Ӟ XX>. 9,10 j   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XUnitedStatesv.Allen(9thCir.2005) \   X ` ` 2 2 425F.3d1231A.  10 U   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XUnitedStatesv.BahenaCardenas(9thCir.2005) G  X ` ` 2 2 411F.3d1067A.  12 @  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XUnitedStatesv.CervantesFlores(9thCir.2005) 2  X ` ` 2 2 421F.3d825A. 12 +{  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XUnitedStatesv.Cromer(6thCir.2004) m  X ` ` 2 2 389F.3d66255B. 6 f  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XUnitedStatesv.Delgado(5thCir.2005) X  X ` ` 2 2 401F.3d290A. 10 Q  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XUnitedStatesv.Hall(9thCir.2005) C  X ` ` 2 2 419F.3d980A. 16 <  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XUnitedStatesv.Houlihan(1stCir.1996) !.  X ` ` 2 2 96F.3d1271A. 14 "'  XUnitedStatesv.Nielsen(2004) $ !  XӀ371F.3d574]]?. 1,7#XX Ӟ%%#Ӟ XXԈ %!" 9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 X XUnitedStatesv.Rashid(8thCir.2004) '#$  ` ` 2 2 Ӏ383F.3d769$!$!F!. #10 (#% 9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XUnitedStatesv.Rondeau(1stCir.2005) *%'  X ` ` 2 2 2005_U.S.App_.LEXIS25224A.00*16 +&(  X 2 ` ` 2 UnitedStatesv.Weiland(9thCir.2005)   X ` ` 2 2 420F.3d1062:.  1,12,17   XUnitedStatesv.Wilmore(9thCir.2004)   X381F.3d868]]?. 3,4   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9#XX Ӟ-#Ӟ XX9% ` hp xX9 2 XWhitev.Illinois(1992)    X ` ` 2 2 502U.S.346,112S.Ct.736,[116_L.Ed_.2d848]>.``?5,10 x   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XWhortonv.Bockting(2006) j   X ` ` 2 2 126S.Ct.2017A.D D 18 c   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9  STATECASES  U    #XX Ӟ2# Ӟ XXCommonwealthv.Given(2004) N   X ` ` 2 X441Mass.741[808N.E.2d788]A.DD/16 G  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XCommonwealthv.Gonsalves(Mass.2005) 9  X ` ` 2 2 445Mass.1[833N.E.2d549]55B.66,7 2  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XInreAprilC.(2005) $t  X ` ` 2 2 131_Cal.App_.4th599A.HH$17 m  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XInreFernando(2006) _  X ` ` 2 2 137_Cal.App_.4th14855B.HH$6 X  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XInreMoore(2005) J  X ` ` 2 2 133_Cal.App_.4th68A.#18 C  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XInreS.C.(2006)  5  X ` ` 2 2 138_Cal.App_.4th396A.HH$17 !.  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XInreSakarias(2005) #    X ` ` 2 2 35Cal.4th140A.2 2 18 $ !  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XKulshrethav.FirstUnionCommercialCorp.(2004) & "#  X ` ` 2 2 33Cal.4th601A.2 2 17 '#$  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Adams(2004) )$&  X ` ` 2 2 120_Cal.App_.4th106555B.%6 *%'  X 2 ` ` 2 Peoplev.Angulo(2005) +&(  X ` ` 2 2 129_Cal.App_.4th303>.HH$2,16   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Aranda(1965)   X ` ` 2 2 63Cal.2d518]]?. 2,3   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Arreola(1994)    X ` ` 2 2 74Cal.4th1144A. 15    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Avila(2005) x   X ` ` 2 2 131_Cal.App_.4th16355B.HH$2 q    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Baylor(2005) c   X ` ` 2 2 130_Cal.App_.4th35555B.HH$2 \   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Boyd(1990) N   X ` ` 2 2 222_Cal.App_.3d54155B.  #3 G  XPeoplev.Brown(A112649) 9 Ѐ2006_Cal.App.Unpub_.LEXIS8589$!$!F!.""512 2 9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Butler(2005) $t  X ` ` 2 2 127_Cal.App_.4th49]]?.#3,8 m  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Cage(2004) _  X ` ` 2 2 120_Cal.App_.4th770@.HH$79 X  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Carter(2005) J  X ` ` 2 2 36Cal.4th111455B. 3 C  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Castille(2005)  5  X ` ` 2 2 129_Cal.App_.4th863A.HH$10 !.  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Caudillo(2004) #    X ` ` 2 2 122_Cal.App_.4th141755B.%8 $ !  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Cervantes(2004) & "#  X ` ` 2 2 118_Cal.App_.4th162;.HH$1,9,12 '#$  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Combs(2004) )$&  X ` ` 2 2 34Cal.4th821=.2 2 10,17 *%'  X 2 ` ` 2 Peoplev.Corella(2004) +&(  X ` ` 2 2 122_Cal.App_.4th461]]?.HH$7,8   X 2 ` ` 2 Peoplev.Cortes(2004)   X ` ` 2 2 781N.Y.S.2d40155B.RR!8#XX Ӟ55#Ӟ XXԈ  9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 X XPeoplev.Giles(2004)    ` ` 2 2 󀀀123_Cal.App_.4th475B!.BB*13,14   9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Gomez(2004) x   X ` ` 2 2 117_Cal.App_.4th531A.HH$16 q    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Gonzales(2005) c   X ` ` 2 2 131_Cal.App_.4th767A.HH$17 \   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Greenberger(1997) N   X ` ` 2 2 58_Cal.App_.4th29855B.#1 G  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Hallquist(2005) 9  X ` ` 2 2 133_Cal.App_.4th291A.HH$10 2  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Harless(2004) $t  X ` ` 2 2 125_Cal.App_.4th7055B.#3 m  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Houston(2005) _  X ` ` 2 2 130_Cal.App_.4th27955B.HH$1 X  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Jiles(2004) J  X ` ` 2 2 122_Cal.App_.4th504A.HH$13 C  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Johnson(2004)  5  X ` ` 2 2 121_Cal.App_.4th1409=.%12,16 !.  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Jurado(2006) #    X ` ` 2 2 38Cal.4th7255B. 5 $ !  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Kilday(2004) & "#  X ` ` 2 2 123_Cal.App_.4th40655B.HH$6 '#$  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Ledesma(2006) )$&  X ` ` 2 2 39Cal.4th641:.2 2 1,11,13 *%'  X 2 ` ` 2 Peoplev.Lee(2004) +&(  X ` ` 2 2 124_Cal.App_.4th48355B.HH$9   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.LewisandOliver(2006)   X ` ` 2 2 39Cal.4th97055B.2 2 2   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Maki(1985)    X ` ` 2 2 39Cal.3d707A. 15    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Martinez(2005) x   X ` ` 2 2 125_Cal.App_.4th103555B.%2 q    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Martinez(2005) c   X ` ` 2 2 132_Cal.App_.4th233A.HH$16 \   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Mayo(2006) N   X ` ` 2 2 140_Cal.App_.4th535A.HH$13 G  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Mitchell(2005) 9  X ` ` 2 2 131_Cal.App_.4th1210>.%1,11 2  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Monterroso(2004) $t  X ` ` 2 2 34Cal.4th743A.2 2 13 m  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Morgan(2005) _  X ` ` 2 2 125_Cal.App_.4th93555B.HH$7 X  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Morrison(2004) J  X ` ` 2 2 34Cal.4th69855B.2 2 2 C  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Moscat(2004)  5  X ` ` 2 2 777N.Y.S.2d87555B.RR!8 !.  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Navarro(2006) #    X ` ` 2 2 138_Cal.App_.4th146A.HH$16 $ !  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Ochoa(2004) & "#  X ` ` 2 2 121_Cal.App_.4th1551]]?.%3,6 '#$  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Partida(2005) )$&  X ` ` 2 2 37Cal.4th428f55B.z z 2 *%'  X 2 ` ` 2 Peoplev.Price(2004) +&(  X ` ` 2 2 120_Cal.App_.4th224<.HH$3,6,9   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Rincon(2005)   X ` ` 2 2 129_Cal.App_.4th738>.HH$9,11   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Roldan(2005)    X ` ` 2 2 35Cal.4th646A.2 2 10    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Saffold(2005) x   X ` ` 2 2 127_Cal.App_.4th979A.HH$12 q    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Sanchez(2006) c   X ` ` 2 2 138_Cal.App_.4th1085!!G!.%7 \   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Seijas(2005) N   X ` ` 2 2 36Cal.4th29155B.2 2 2 G  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Sisavath(2004) 9  X ` ` 2 2 118_Cal.App_.4th1396]]?.%6,9 2  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Smith(2003) $t  X ` ` 2 2 30Cal.4th581A.2 2 17 m  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Song(2004) _  X ` ` 2 2 124_Cal.App_.4th97355B.HH$3 X  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Taulton(2005) J  X ` ` 2 2 129_Cal.App_.4th1218=.%12,17 C  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Thoma(2005)  5  X ` ` 2 2 128_Cal.App_.4th676A.HH$10 !.  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Thomas(2005) #    X ` ` 2 2 130_Cal.App_.4th1202A.%10 $ !  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Wahlert(2005) & "#  X ` ` 2 2 130_Cal.App_.4th70955B.HH$9 '#$  X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Whitney(2005) )$&  X ` ` 2 2 129_Cal.App_.4th128755B.%2 *%'  X 2 ` ` 2 Peoplev.Wilson(2005) +&(  X ` ` 2 2 36Cal.4th30955B.2 2 5   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XPeoplev.Winson(1981)   X ` ` 2 2 29Cal.3d711A. 15   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XStancilv.UnitedStates(D.C.App.2005)    X ` ` 2 2 866A.2d799>. 7,11    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XStatev.West(2005) x   X ` ` 2 2 355_Ill.App_.3d28[823N.E.2d82]]]?.26,8 q    X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9 2 XWhitmanv.SuperiorCourt(1991) c   X ` ` 2 2 54Cal.3d1063A.b b 16 \   X9% ` hp x` ` 2 9  FEDERALSTATUTES#XX ӞO# N  Ӟ XX  FederalEvidenceCode -}  402$!$!F!.17#XX Ӟ#Ӟ XX  o FederalRulesofEvidence a  Fed.RuleofEvid.804(b)$!$!F!.%14#XX ӞE#Ӟ XX  S UnitedStatesConstitution  E AmendmentV!!G!. 2 7 AmendmentVIB!." " passim  )   STATESTATUTES  !  EvidenceCode  #    2 X124055B...2 % " 9% ` hp x2 9 2 X1350A...14 '"$ 9% ` hp x2 9 2 X1370A...13 )$& 9% ` hp x2 9 2 X PenalCode  +&( Ї969b=...12,17  9% ` hp x2 9  OTHERAUTHORITIES#XX Ӟ #    Friedman,ProfessorRichard,Confrontation:TheSearchforBasicPrinciples, 86  _Geo.L.J._Ԁ1011!!G!.I I 6 @  g   Ӟ XX   #XX Ӟ)#  8    ADHEARSAYANDTHE6THAMENDMENT  AFTERCRAWFORDv.WASHINGTON  @  @D    %(335  "<3"  <3݊2  I  .3  0 4   TheCrawfordholding <3݊ ݌|4!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;Nj0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  InitsholdinginCrawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.36,theU.S. H SupremeCourtabandoned24yearsofSixthAmendmentprecedentdating . ~ backtoitsearlierholdinginOhiov.Roberts(1980)448U.S.56.>;Nj݌ d ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  Crawfordholdsthatwheneverthestateoffershearsayevidenceagainst  0 theaccusedthatis testimonialinnature,theSixthAmendment    ConfrontationClauserequiresashowingof>;Ӎ݌   ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?j0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  unavailability;and?j݌x  ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?o0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  aprioropportunityforcrossexamination(Crawford,supra,atpp. D  6869.)?o݌*z  ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;ˑ0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  Thus,for testimonialhearsay,theruleinOhiov.Robertsthatfocuseson F the reliabilityofthehearsayisnolongervalid.>;ˑ݌, ! ! Ќ  "<3"  <3S2  II  .3  0 4   Standardsofreviewandprejudice <3S݌4!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;B0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  PreCrawford,whetherahearsaystatementwastrustworthywasreviewed t forabuseofdiscretion.(Peoplev.Greenberger(1997)58_Cal.App_.4th Z 298,335.)>;Bo݌@ ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >; 0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  PostCrawford,thecourtindependentlyreviewsthetotalityofthe  \ circumstancessurroundingthestatementtodeterminewhetherhearsayis B  testimonial.(Peoplev.Cervantes(2004)118_Cal.App_.4th162,175, ( reviewdenied[findingthestatementsnontestimonial];UnitedStatesv.  Weiland(9thCir.2005)420F.3d1062,1076,fn.12[indicatingthesame  standardwouldapplytowhethertherewasanadequateopportunityto   crossexamine,andfindingpublicdocumentsnottestimonial].)>; 9݌p!  ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  Becausetestimonialhearsayimplicatestheconfrontationclause, <#" erroneousadmissionofsuchevidenceisreviewedforharmlesserror "$r# underChapman.(UnitedStatesv.Nielsen(2004),371F.3d574,581, %X $ citingDelawarev.VanArsdall(1986)475U.S.673,680-681.Seealso, %>!% Peoplev.Ledesma(2006)39Cal.4th641.[Crawforderrorwasharmless &$"& beyondareasonabledoubtprimarilybecausenumerouswitnesseshad ' #' testifiedthedefendantadmittedtherobbery;0XXXXPeoplev.Mitchell(2005) (#( 131_Cal.App_.4th1210[admissionofotherwisetestimonialhearsayin91 )$) 1callwas#XXX0X난#harmlessunderChapman];Peoplev.Houston(2005)130 l*%* _Cal.App_.4th279[same].)>;݌R+&+ ! ! Ќ   8,',  "<3"  <3f2  III  .3  0 4   Waiverorforfeitureonappeal <3f݌4!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;S0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  InPeoplev.Partida(2005)37Cal.4th428f,theCaliforniaSupremeCourt | hasheldthatthoughthespecificbasisforobjectionmustbestated,and b reviewislimitedtothatbasis,adueprocessargumentispreservedfor H appealregardlessofwhetherdueprocesswasinvokedinthetrialcourt.>;S݌. ~ ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  Peoplev.Baylor(2005)130_Cal.App_.4th355[objectiononHSgrounds  J didnotpreserveaCrawfordclaim;hearsaydeclarantwasavailablefor  0 crossexaminationanyway],reviewgrantedSeptember21,2005behind    Partida.>;š݌   ! ! Ќ  "<3"  <3ţ2  IV  .3  0 4   Unavailability :<3ţ݌x 4!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  Crawfordcannotreasonablybeunderstoodasbarringsuchevidence D  wherethedeclarantwasavailableforthatpurposeattrial,andthe *z  defendantcouldhavecross-examinedhim.(Peoplev.LewisandOliver ` (2006)39Cal.4th970,1028,fn.19.)Thus,lackofunavailabilityalone F willnotsupportaCrawfordchallengetohearsayevidenceinCalifornia.>;Ϥ݌, ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;H0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  0XXXXWaitinguntilthedaybeforetrialtolookforawitnessisnotsufficientto  showduediligencetoestablishunavailability.(Peoplev.Avila(2005)  131_Cal.App_.4th163[nomentionofCrawford].)#XXX0X#>;Hu݌t ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  [_W]hen_Ԁthedeclarantappearsforcrossexaminationattrial,the @ ConfrontationClauseplacesnoconstraintsatallontheuseofhisprior &v testimonialstatements.See,Californiav.Green,399U.S.149(1970).  \ (Crawford,supra,atp.59,fn.9.)Thus,whetherornotthehearsay B statementistestimonial,theConfrontationClauseissatisfiedifthe ( declarantispresentincourt,testifies,andissubjecttocrossexamination.  (Peoplev.Martinez(2005)125_Cal.App_.4th1035,reviewdenied.See  also,Peoplev.Morrison(2004)34Cal.4th698,720[notinginpassing   thattheintroductionofawitnesssprioridentificationofdefendant p!  (admittedasaspontaneousdeclarationunderEvid.Code1240)raised V"! no6thAmendmentissuebecausethewitnesstestifiedattrialandwas <#" subjecttocrossexaminationaboutthestatement];Peoplev.Whitney "$r# (2005)129_Cal.App_.4th1287[assumingCrawfordappliedtoSVP %X $ proceeding(butseeAngulo,ante),introductionofthedefendants %>!% admissionstodoctordidnotviolatethe6thAmendmentbecausethe &$"& doctortestified].)>;݌' #' ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;k0 4 2  D  .3  0 4!4!  0XXXXProperinvocationofthewitness5thAmendmentprivilegerendershim )$) unavailableforCrawford'spurposes.(Peoplev.Seijas(2005)36Cal.4th l*%* 291.)#XXX0X#ԀThisthreadofCrawfordintersectswithanotherlineofSixth R+&+ Amendmentcaselaw!theBrutonArandalineofcases.(Brutonv.U.S. 8,', (1968)391U.S.123;Peoplev.Aranda(1965)63Cal.2d518.)The  BrutonArandarulemakeinadmissibleagainsttheotherdefendantsthe  outofcourtstatementofanontestifyingcodefendantinajointtrialof | twoormoredefendants.However,theruleprovidesfurtherthattheSixth b Amendmentisnotapplicableinsuchasituationifthecodefendantwho H madetheconfessiontestifiesandissubjecttocrossexamination.Thisis . ~ truewhetherthecodefendantadmitsordeniestheconfession.(Nelsonv.  d _ONeil_Ԁ(1971)402U.S.622;Peoplev.Boyd(1990)222_Cal.App_.3d541).  J CrawfordappearstobeconsistentwithBrutonAranda!bothintermsof  0 whatitprohibitsandwhatitpermits.Whethertheadmissionofaco    defendantsstatementisviewedasviolatingBrutonArandaorCrawford,    alimitinginstructionwillnotcuretheerror.(Peoplev.Song(2004)124   _Cal.App_.4th973,982983.)>;k݌x  ! ! Ќ  "<3"  <322  V  .3  0 4   Adequacyofpriorcrossexamination :<32_݌D 4!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;#0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  EvenafterCrawford,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtmaycontinueto ` weightheeffectivenessofpriorcrossexaminationtodetermineifitwas F goodenoughtorenderthepriortestimonyreliable.(0XXXXPeoplev.Carter , (2005)36Cal.4th1114.)>;#P݌ ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;S0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  #XXX0X뭺#Preliminaryhearingcrossexaminationmaybesufficienttopermituseof  priortestimony.(0XXXXPeoplev.Price(2004)120_Cal.App_.4th.224[victim's t statementtopoliceatthescenewastestimonial,butthedefendanthadand Z  vigorouslyusedhisopportunitytocrossexamineatthepreliminary @ hearing].Seealso,#XXX0X뀼#See,Peoplev.Ochoa(2004)121_Cal.App_.4th1551, &v reviewgrantedbehindbothBlackandCage.)0XXXX>;S݌ \ ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  InanUNPUBLISHEDopinion,oneappellatepanelhasheldthat ( recalcitranceofthe_declarant_/witnessdoesnotunconstitutionally  underminetheopportunityforcrossexamination.#XXX0X붾#Ԁ(Peoplev.DuyTran  (2006)2006Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS8833[4DCA/3,relyingonDelaware   v.Fensterer(1985)474U.S.15[6thA.doesnotguaranteecooperative p!  witnessorsuccessfulcrossexamination].Accord,0XXXXPeoplev.Butler(2005) V"! 127_Cal.App_.4th49,reviewdenied[awitnesswhodeniesthathemadea <#" priorhearsaystatementisstillavailableforcrossexamination,andthus "$r# thestatementcancomein]#XXX0X#;Peoplev.Harless(2004)125_Cal.App_.4th70, %X $ remandedafterdecisioninBlack[impeachedbyapriorinconsistent %>!% statementwhichwitnessmaintainedshecouldnotrecallwasadequate &$"& opportunityforeffectivecrossexaminationaboutthehearsaystatement].)>;F݌' #' ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  D  .3  0 4!4!  Harlessisarguablyboundbyitsfacts(thewitnessdidattempttoexplain )$) awayherstatement),andtheNinthCircuithasheldthatrestrictionson l*%* crossexaminationcanrenderuseofapriorstatementaviolationofSixth R+&+ AmendmentconfrontationrightsunderCrawford.(UnitedStatesv. 8,', Wilmore(9thCir.2004)381F.3d868.Seealso,Smithv.Illinois(1968)  390U.S.129;Davisv.Alaska(1974)415U.S.308;andDelawarev.Van  Arsdall(1986)475U.S.673.)Allthreeofthesecasesstandforthe | propositionthatevidencerulesthatsignificantlyunderminethe b effectivenessofcrossexaminationoffendtheSixthAmendment,even H thoughthewitnesshasbeenquestionedinopencourt.>;D݌. ~ ! ! Ќ  "<3"  <32  VI  .3  0 4   Relatederrors :Oncetestimonialhearsayisadmitted,itmaybeaseparate6th  J Amendmentviolationtolimitcrossexaminationaboutit0XXXX.(UnitedStatesv.  0 Wilmore(9thCir.2004)381F.3d868[#XXX0X#d0XXXXistrictcourtrestricteddefendant'scross    examinationofagovernmentwitnessabouthergrandjurytestimonyaftershe    invokedtheFifthattrialandthegovernmentintroducedhergrandjurytestimony   asapriorinconsistentstatement].#XXX0X@#0XXXX)#XXX0X#<3݌x 4!4! Ќ  "<3"  <332  VII  .3  0 4   Developingadefinitionfor testimonialhearsay <33c݌D 4!4! Ќ  0 4 InCrawford,theCourtchoseto leaveforanotherdayanyefforttospellouta ` comprehensivedefinitionoftestimonial.(Crawford,supra,atp.68.) F However,theopinioncontainsthefollowingpremisesthatprovidesome , indicationofwhattheCourtconsiderstobe testimonialhearsay:4!4! ">;"  >;0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  Testimony,...istypically[a]solemndeclarationoraffirmationmade  forthepurposeofestablishingorprovingsomefact.(Crawford,supra, t atp.51.)>;݌Z ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  Atitsabsolutenarrowest, whateverelsethetermcovers,itappliesata &v minimumtopriortestimonyatapreliminaryhearing,beforeagrandjury,  \ orataformertrial;andtopoliceinterrogations.(Crawford,supra,at.p. B 68[taperecordedstatementofdefendantswife,obtainedduringher ( interrogationasasuspect,was testimonialhearsayand,thus,subjectto  Crawfordsstringentstandard].)>;݌ ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  TheCourtalsonotedthree formulationsofthe coreclassof p!  testimonialstatements(Crawford,supra,atpp.5152.SeealsoDavis V"! v.WashingtonandHammondv.Indiana(2006)547U.S.򀀀,2006DAR <#" 7615[endorsingthe3rd formulationatleastasitappliestostatements "$r# tolawenforcementoutsideofaformalinterrogationsetting].)>;݌%X $ ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?o0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  exparteincourttestimonyoritsfunctionalequivalent"thatis, &$"& materialsuchasaffidavits,custodialexaminations,priortestimony ' #' thatthedefendantwasunabletocrossexamine,orsimilarpretrial (#( statementsthatdeclarantswouldreasonablyexpecttobeused )$) prosecutorially,BriefforPetitioner23;?o݌l*%* ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  extrajudicialstatements...containedinformalizedtestimonial 8,', materials,suchasaffidavits,depositions,priortestimony,or  confessions.Whitev.Illinois,502U.S.346,365,112S.Ct.736,  116_L.Ed_.2d848(1992)(Thomas,J.,joinedbyScalia,J., | concurringinpartandconcurringinjudgment);?)݌b ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  statementsthatweremadeundercircumstanceswhichwould . ~ leadanobjectivewitnessreasonablytobelievethatthestatement  d wouldbeavailableforuseatalatertrial,BriefforNational  J AssociationofCriminalDefenseLawyersetal.asAmiciCuriae  0 3.?݌   ! ! Ќ  "<3"  <32  VIII  .3  0 4   Priortestimony :<3(݌ 4!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  Testimonyatafirsttrialbyawitnessunavailableatasubsequenttrial ^  afterreversalandremandistestimonialhearsay.(Peoplev.Wilson(2005) D  36Cal.4th309[sufficientopportunitytocrossexamineatthefirsttrial].)>;݌*z  ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  ConditionalExaminations:InPeoplev.Jurado(2006)38Cal.4th72,the F courtheldthatevidencefromaconditionalexaminationtakenpriortothe , victimsdeathwasadmissibleevenafterCrawford,becausethedeclarant  testifiedunderoathandthedefendanthadanopportunitytocross  examine.>;݌ ! ! Ќ  "<3"  <322  IX  .3  0 4   Statementsmadetopoliceofficers <32_݌Z4!4! Ќ  ">; "  >;+0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  Formalinterrogationisnotnecessary. >;+X݌&v ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?20 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  TheUSSCrejectedtheformalityrequirementinitsjointopinionin B Davisv.WashingtonandHammondv.Indiana(2006)547U.S.򀀀 ( ,2006DAR7615.There,thecourtheldthataconversationduring  a911calloratthescenebetweenanofficerandawitnessmay  containtestimonialhearsayifitispartoftheinvestigation,rather   thanefforttorenderaidinanemergency.?2_݌p!  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  Historically,justicesofthepeacewerenotmagistratesaswe <#" understandtheoffice.Rathertheyperformedinvestigative "$r# functionsthatwecurrentlyassociatewiththepolice.(Crawford, %X $ supra,atp.53.)?B݌%>!% ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  ThelargerpointofCrawfordisthatstatementsmadetothe ' #' authoritiesbypersonswhoshouldreasonablyexpectthatthe (#( statementwouldbeusedagainsttheaccusedininvestigatingand )$) prosecutingacrimearepreciselythesortofaccusatorystatement l*%* theConfrontationClausewasdesignedtoaddress,regardlessof R+&+ theformalityofthesetting.Thiswasendorsedin_Hammon_/Davis, 8,', supra.(Seealso,UnitedStatesv.Cromer(6thCir.2004)389F.3d  _662,673674[discussingagreementamongseveralotherfederal  circuitsandfocusingonwhetherthedeclaranthasmadean | accusatorystatement],quotingProf.RichardFriedman, b Confrontation:TheSearchforBasicPrinciples,86Geo.L.J.1011 H (1998)[ Astatementmadeknowinglytotheauthoritiesthat . ~ describescriminalactivityisalmostalways testimonial].)Note:  d Prof.FriedmansarticlewascitedapprovinglyinCrawford,supra,  J atp.61,andProf.Friedmancoauthoredoneofthemore  0 influentialamicusbriefssubmittedinCrawford.?J݌   ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  Statementsmadeatcrimescenes >;݌  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Hammonv.Indiana,subnomDavisv.Washington(2006)547 ^  U.S.򀀀,2006DAR7615[statementsmadebythevictimduringa D  crimesceneinterviewthatfocusedoninvestigation,notrendering *z  ofemergencyaidweretestimonialhearsay].MostoftheDCA ` decisionsinCaliforniaanticipated_Hammon_/Davis.(See,e.g., F 0XXXXPeoplev.Price(2004)120_Cal.App_.4th.224[victim'sstatementto , policeatthescenewastestimonial#XXX0X#];Peoplev.Sisavath(2004)118  Cal.App.4th1396,reviewdenied[statementallegedchildvictim  madetoapoliceofficerrespondingtothescenewas testimonial,  becausethe statementwasknowinglygiveninresponseto t structuredpolicequestioning];InreFernando(2006)137 Z _Cal.App_.4th148,reviewgrantedbehindCage[statementsby @ robberyvictimdescribingcrimeandidentifyingdefendantin &v responsetopolicequestioningafterthedefendanthadbeen  \ arrestedconstitutedtestimonialhearsay];Peoplev.Adams(2004) B 120_Cal.App_.4th1065,reviewgranted(S127373)[fortyfive ( minuteinterviewofthecomplainantatthehospitalwas  testimonial];Peoplev.Ochoa(2004)121_Cal.App_.4th1551,  reviewgrantedbehindbothBlackandCage[insistenceon   formalityisinconsistentwithcoremessageofCrawford];People p!  v.Kilday(2004)123_Cal.App_.4th406,reviewgranted(S129567) V"! behindCage[distinguishingtwostatementsbyvictimto <#" respondingofficersatthescenebasedonwhethertheywere "$r# directedtoaddressingemergencyassistanceorinvestigationof %X $ crime].)?݌%>!% ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  Otherjurisdictionsalsoanticipated_Hammon_/Davis.(Seealso, ' #' Statev.West(2005)355_Ill.App_.3d28[823N.E.2d82] (#( [distinguishinginterviewatthehospitaltoobtainevidencefrom )$) questionsatthescenetoadministermedicalassistance],following l*%* Kilday;0XXXXԀSpencerv.State(Tex.App.2005)162S.W.3d877,881#XXX0X)# R+&+ [0XXXX excitedutterancescanbemadebothspontaneouslyandin 8,', responsetoquestioning.];#XXX0X#0XXXXԀStancilv.UnitedStates(D.C.App.  2005)866A.2d799,809[ Someexcited#XXX0Xq#Ԁ0XXXXutterancesare  testimonial,andothersarenot,dependingonthecircumstances]#XXX0X#; | Commonwealthv.Gonsalves(Mass.2005)445Mass.1[833 b N.E.2d549],heldthatstatementsmadeinresponsetopolice H questioningatthescene arepersetestimonial,exceptwhere . ~ necessaryto secureavolatilesceneorobtain medicalcare];  d UnitedStatesv.Nielsen(9thCir.2004)371F.3d574[defendants  J girlfriendsstatementinresponsetopolicequestioningduringa  0 searchweretestimonialhearsay].)?݌   ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?X0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  However,someCaliforniadecisionsdidnotanticipate   _Hammon_/Davis.(See,Peoplev.Cage(2004)120_Cal.App_.4th x  770,reviewgrantedOctober13,2004(S127344),arguedJanuary ^  9,2007[toconstituteinterrogationfor6thA.purposes,the D  statementmustbemadeinarelativelyformalproceedingthat *z  contemplatesatrial];Peoplev.Corella(2004)122_Cal.App_.4th ` 461.[statementstorespondingofficerwerenotresultof F interrogationbecause underCrawfordapoliceinterrogation , requiresarelativelyformalinvestigationwhereatrialis  contemplated].)?X݌ ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  4  .3  0 ! !  Inaratherunusualscenario,inPeoplev.Morgan(2005)125 t _Cal.App_.4th935,thecourtheldthatstatements,includingimplied Z assertionsrequestingdrugsmadebyacallertoahousewherea @ searchwarrantwasbeingexecuted(andwhichwereinterceptedby &v apoliceofficerwhopretendedtobeanassociateofthedefendant  \ suspectedofsellingdrugs)werenot testimonial,because the B informalstatementmadeinanunstructuredsettingdoesnot ( resemblethepoliceinterrogationinCrawford8[and]the  officersminimalresponsetothecallerisnottheinvolvementof  governmentofficersintheproductionoftestimonywithaneye   towardtrial[that]presentsuniquepotentialforprosecutorial p!  abuse.(Id.atp.947.?݌V"! ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >; 0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  911calls >;  ݌"$r# ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Davisv.Washington(2006)547U.S.򀀀,2006DAR7615held %>!% thatstatementsmadebythevictimduringa911callimmediately &$"& afteranassault,whilethevictimwasdistraughtandrequestingaid ' #' inanemergencywerenottestimonialhearsay.(Seealso,Peoplev. (#( Sanchez(2006)138_Cal.App_.4th1085[witnessesreportingtraffic )$) accidentto911operator toarrangeassistanceforpeople l*%* injuredinatrafficaccident,and toassistauthoritiesin R+&+ apprehendingthedriverwhoappearedtothecallerstohavecaused 8,', ...theaccident,therebypreventinganyadditionalharmtoother  personsandpotentiallyassistingthosealreadyharmedinthe  reportedaccidentinafutureefforttoobtaincompensationfortheir | injuriesandlosses],reviewgrantedbehindCage;?݌b ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  Otherrationalespriorto_Hammon_/DavisincludedPeoplev. . ~ Corella,supra,122_Cal.App_.4thatp.468[defendantswifes  d statementtothe911operatorthatherhusbandhitherwasfound  J tobenontestimonialbecauseitwasnot knowinglygivenin  0 responsetostructuredpolicequestioning];Peoplev.Caudillo    (2004)122_Cal.App_.4th1417,asmodified2004Cal.App.LEXIS    1849,reviewgranted(S129212)[anonymousnonvictims   statementto911operatorreporting menwithgunsand x  providinga_descriptionofthecarfromwhichshotswerefiredby ^  antothe911operatorwas nontestimonial,becauseitwasnot D   madeundercircumstancesthatwouldleadanobjectivewitness *z  reasonablytobelievethestatementwouldbeavailableforlateruse ` attrial];Peoplev.Moscat(2004)777N.Y.S.2d875[statement F madetoa911operatorisnottestimonial,becausea testimonial , statementisproducedwhenthegovernmentsummonsacitizento  beawitness;ina911callitisthecitizenwhosummonsthe  governmenttoheraid].)?݌ ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  EvenafterHammon/Davis,wherethe911callisnottoreportan Z emergency,butrathertoprovideinvestigativeinformationafter @ thecrimehasbeencommitted,thestatementmaybetestimonial &v underCrawford.(Peoplev.Cortes(2004)781N.Y.S.2d401  \ [statementbyathirdpartywitnessto911operatorwas B testimonial,because [w]hena911callismadetoreportacrime ( andsupplyinformationaboutthecircumstancesandthepeople  involved,thepurposeoftheinformationisfortheinvestigation,  prosecutionandpotentialuseatajudicialproceeding;itmakesno   differencewhatthecallerbelieves]; Statev.West(Ill.App.2005) p!  355Ill.App.3d28[823N.E.2d82][rejectedabrightlinerule,and V"! concludedthata911callreportingacrimeconstituted bearing <#" witnessandlaterstatementsinresponsetoquestionswerealso "$r# testimonial].)?݌%X $ ! ! Ќ  "<3 "  <3B 2  X  .3  0 4   Statementstonongovernmentalindividuals <3B o ݌&$"&4!4! Ќ  ">; "  >;9!0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  [A]personwhomakesacasualremarktoanacquaintanceisnotmaking (#( a testimonialstatement.(Crawford,supra,atp.51.Seealso,0XXXXPeoplev. )$) Butler(2005)127Cal.App.4th49,reviewdenied[expressedahardline l*%* againstanystatementnotmadeinthecourseofpoliceinterrogation, R+&+ because theSupremeCourtfocusedonstatementsgiveninlieuoforal 8,', testimony,suchasanaffidavit,orgiventoagovernmentofficialina  formalstatement]#XXX0X"#.)>;9!f!݌ ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;$0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  However,wherethegovernmentarrangestheconversationbetweenthe b declarantandtheotherindividual,thehearsaymaybetestimonial.(See, H 0XXXXPeoplev.Wahlert(2005)130Cal.App.4th709,reviewgranted#XXX0X&#0XXXX . ~ [statementstocodefendantmadeduringconversationsetupbypoliceas  d a pretextcalltogetevidenceagainstdefendantwere#XXX0X&#0XXXXtestimonial,but  J errorharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt];#XXX0X'#Peoplev.Lee(2004)124  0 Cal.App.4th483[tapedinterviewoftwowitnessesbythepoliceis     testimonial],reviewgranted(S130570),behindCage(S127344).)>;$$݌   ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;G)0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  Further,wheretheprivatecommunicationisparticularlyaccusatory,it x  mayalsobetestimonial.(See,Crawford,supra,atpp.1152[twoofthe ^  three formulationsof testimonialhearsaythatJusticeScaliaprovided D  focusontheintentofthedeclarant];Ibid.[primeexampleoftestimonial *z  hearsaywasLordCobhamsprivateletterimplicatingSirWalter ` Raleigh].)Modernly,accusatorystatementsmaybemadetoarapeor F domesticviolencecounselor,aprivateattorney,adoctororanyother , privateperson.Theimpactoftheuseofsuchstatementsdoesnotjustify  suchabroadexemptionfromthe6thA.(See,0XXXXPeoplev.Price(2004)120  Cal.App.4th.224#XXX0X-#[distinguishingstatementsmadetodoctortoobtain  diagnosisandtreatmentfromthoseidentifyingherassailant];Peoplev. t Cervantes(2004)118Cal.App.4th162,reviewdenied.[assuming Z statementstoprivatepersonscouldqualifyas testimonialunder3rd @  formulation,buthere,statementmadebyacodefendanttoaneighbor &v intheprocessofseekingmedicalhelpwasnottestimonial];Peoplev.  \ Sisavath,supra,118Cal.App.4thatp.1402[rejectingtheAttorney B Generalsargumentthatthechildsvideotapedstatementcouldnotbe (  testimonialbecauseitwasnotgiventoagovernmentemployee;  endorseduseof3rd formulation].Compare,0XXXXPeoplev.Rincon(2005)  129Cal.App.4th738,reviewdenied[statementmadebyashootingvictim   tohisformergangmemberfriendwasnot testimonialbecausehecould p!  notreasonablyhaveexpectedthefriendtorelatethestatementtothe V"! policeforuseinaprosecution];#XXX0X1#Peoplev.Cage,supra,120Cal.App.4th <#" 770,reviewgranted[statementmadebythevictimtoadoctoratthe "$r# emergencyroomwasnottestimonial,becausethedoctorwasneithera %X $ policeofficernoranagentofthepolice].)>;G)t)݌%>!% ! ! Ќ  "<3 "  <3F42  XI  .3  0 4   Statementswhicharenothearsay,ornotadmittedtoprovethetruthdonot ' #' violatethe6thA.<3F4s4݌(#(4!4! Ќ  ">; "  >;50 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  The[confrontation]clause8doesnotbartheuseoftestimonial l*%* statementsforpurposesotherthanestablishingthetruthofthematter R+&+ asserted.SeeTennesseev.Street,471U.S.409(1985)8(Crawford, 8,', supra,atp.59,fn.9[Streetcodefendantsconfessionwasofferedasa  priorinconsistentstatementinrebuttaltodefendantstestimony].)>;55݌ ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;G80 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  Acodefendantsstatementsmadeduringavideotapedreenactmentof b thecrime(donejointlybydefendantandcodefendant)donotraise H confrontationclauseissuesbecausetheywerenotofferedforahearsay . ~ purpose.(Peoplev.Combs(2004)34Cal.4th821,842[thedefendant  d adoptedhiscodefendantsstatementsandtheywerenotofferedfortheir  J truthbut,rather,tosupplymeaningtodefendantsconductorsilencein  0 thefaceofthem]>;G8t8݌   ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;i;0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  0XXXXExperttestimonybasedonhearsayandthehearsayitselfregardingthe   defendantsgangstatusisadmissibletosubstantiateanexpertopinion. x  (Peoplev.Thomas(2005)130Cal.App.4th1202[thehearsayuponwhich ^  theexpertreliedwasnot#XXX0X<#0XXXXԀadmittedforitstruth].Seealso, Peoplev. D  Hallquist(2005)133Cal.App.4th291[apostCrawfordcasewithoutany *z  mentionofCrawfordarrivingatthesameconclusion].)#XXX0Xz=#>;i;;݌` ! ! Ќ  "<3 "  <3>2  XII  .3  0 4   Hearsayexceptions <3>?݌,4!4! Ќ  ">; "  >;?0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  ConfessionsandAdmissions >;?@݌ ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?@0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Presumably,thefactastatementconstitutesa confessiondoes t notremoveitfrom6thA.protection.OneCrawfordformulation Z includes extrajudicialstatements...containedinformalized @ testimonialmaterials,suchasaffidavits,depositions,prior &v testimony,orconfessions.Whitev.Illinois,502U.S.346,365,  \ 112S.Ct.736,116L.Ed.2d848(1992)(Thomas,J.,joinedby B Scalia,J.,concurringinpartandconcurringinjudgment).?@@݌( ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?D0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  However,Californiadecisionshaverejected6thA.challengesto  admissionsofsuchstatements.(See,Peoplev.Roldan(2005)35   Cal.4th646,711,fn.25[defendantsadoptiveadmissionsarenot p!   testimonial];0XXXXPeoplev.Castille(2005)129Cal.App.4th863 V"! [same];#XXX0XE#Peoplev.Thoma(2005)128Cal.App.4th676,review <#" granted(S134243)[issue:whetherdefendantssilenceduringa "$r# courthearingcanbedeemedanadoptiveadmission].)?D?D݌%X $ ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;G0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  Co-conspiratorstatements arenottestimonialandthereforebeyondthe &$"& compassofCrawfordsholding.See[Crawford]at56(describing ' #' statementsinfurtheranceofaconspiracyasstatementsthatbytheir (#( nature[are]nottestimonial)(UnitedStatesv.Allen(9thCir.2005)425 )$) F.3d1231,quotingCrawfordandcitingUnitedStatesv.Delgado(5thCir. l*%* 2005)401F.3d290,299andUnitedStatesv.Rashid(8thCir.2004)383 R+&+ F.3d769,777.)>;GG݌8,', ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;J0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  0XXXX SpontaneousStatements >;JK݌ ! ! Ќ  "? "  ? L0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  #XXX0XK#InPeoplev.Ledesma(2006)39Cal.4th641,theSupremeCourt b assumed spontaneousstatementtestimonyviolatedthe H defendants6thA.rightunderCrawfordandDavis,butfoundthe . ~ errorharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtprimarilybecause  d numerouswitnesseshadtestifiedthedefendantadmittedthecrime.? L9L݌ J ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?N0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  0XXXXHowever,oneCourtofAppealdecisionhasrejecteda6thA.    challengebasedonadeterminationthestatementwas     spontaneous.(Peoplev.Rincon(2005)129Cal.App.4th738,   reviewdenied[citing#XXX0XO#0XXXXCrawford,supra,541U.S.atp.58,fn.8[a x  statementmade immediat[ely]uponthehurtreceived,andbefore ^  [thedeclarant]hadtimetodeviseorcontriveanythingforherown D  advantage.]#XXX0XP#0XXXX.Contra,#XXX0X+R#0XXXXSpencerv.State(Tex.App.2005)162 *z  S.W.3d877,881#XXX0X{R#Ԁ[0XXXX excitedutterancescanbemadeboth ` spontaneouslyandinresponsetoquestioning.];#XXX0X S#0XXXXԀStancilv.United F States(D.C.App.2005)866A.2d799,809[ Someexcited#XXX0XS#0XXXX , #XXX0XlT#0XXXXutterancesaretestimonial,andothersarenot,dependingonthe  circumstances]#XXX0XT#.) ?NN݌ ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;U0 4 2  D  .3  0 4!4!  Documentaryevidence,businessandofficialrecords >;UU݌t ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?V0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Withoutaddressingthequestion,Crawfordnotedthat mostofthe @ hearsayexceptions[historicallyusedtopermituseofhearsayat &v trial]coveredstatementsthatbytheirnaturewerenot  \ testimonial--forexample,businessrecords.(Crawford,supra, B 541U.S.atp.56.)Theconcurrenceelevatedthispassing ( comment: theCourtsanalysisoftestimonyexcludesatleast  somehearsayexceptions,suchasbusinessrecordsandofficial  records.(Id.,atp.76,conc.opinionofRehnquist,J.)?VV݌  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?kZ0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  Classificationasabusinessrecord,however,doesnotalone V"! determinewhetherthistypeofevidenceisadmissibleas <#" nontestimonialunderCrawford.InCrawford,theSupremeCourt "$r# notedbusinessrecordswereoneexampleofhearsaystatements %X $ thatbytheirnaturewerenottestimonial.Bythisthecourtcould %>!% nothavemeantalldocumentaryevidencewhichcouldbroadly &$"& qualifyinsomecontextasabusinessrecordshouldautomatically ' #' beconsiderednontestimonial.Thus,thequestionsbeforeacourt (#( aremoreproperlywhetherthebusinessrecordinquestion )$) neverthelesscontainstestimonialevidenceandwhethertherecord l*%* isadmissibleincompliancewithCrawfordsrequirements. R+&+ (0XXXXPeoplev.Mitchell(2005)131Cal.App.4th1210,reviewdenied#XXX0X^#Ԁ[a 8,', dispatchlogtapewasabusinessrecord,relevanttotheofficers  actionsandstateofmind,and immaterialtoanycontestedmatter  inthetrialandthus,not testimonialhearsay;2statementson | thetapethatincriminatedthedefendantwere testimonialhearsay b andharmlessunderChapman].)?kZZ݌H ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?La0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  InPeoplev.Johnson(2004)121Cal.App.4th1409,theFirst  d DistrictreasonedthatanAlamedaCountyCrimeLaboratoryreport  J containinganexpertdeterminationofthenarcoticqualityofthe  0 substancepossessedbydefendantwasnot testimonial.    However,thisportionoftheopinionmaybedicta,giventhe    broaderholdinginthecasethattheSixthAmendmentsimplydid   notapplytoprobationrevocationhearings.?Laya݌x  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?bd0 4 0 4!4!2  4  .3  0 ! !  0XXXXIncaseswherethe6thA.didapply,variouspiecesofdocumentary D  evidencepreparedforpurposesotherthantoprosecutethe *z  defendanthavebeenfoundtobenottestimonial.(Peoplev. ` Saffold(2005)127Cal.App.4th979#XXX0Xe#0XXXX[#XXX0Xrf#0XXXXaproofofserviceexecuted F byadeputysheriffservingarestrainingorderonthedefendantina , prosecutionfor7countsofviolatingtherestrainingorder];People  v.Taulton(2005)129Cal.App.4th1218[aPenalCodesection   969bpacket;foreseeabilityisnotthestandard,thepurposefor  whichthedocumentwaspreparedis#XXX0Xf#0XXXX]#XXX0Xh#0XXXX,disagreeingwithPeoplev. t Cervantes(2004)118Cal.App.4th162;#XXX0Xh#0XXXXaccord,UnitedStatesv. Z Weiland(9thCir.2005)420F.3d1062[ Penitentiarypacketwas @ apublicrecordunderCrawford];Peoplev.Brown(A112649) &v 2006Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS8589[same];#XXX0Xi#0XXXXUnitedStatesv.  \ BahenaCardenas(9thCir.2005)411F.3d1067[awarrantof B deportationheldinthedefendantsINSfile];#XXX0Xj#0XXXXUnitedStatesv. ( CervantesFlores(9thCir.2005)421F.3d825[acertificateof  nonexistenceofrecord,submittedbythegovernmenttoprovethat  defendanthadnotreceivedtheAttorneyGeneralsconsentto   reentertheUnitedStatesinprosecutionforbeingfoundinthe p!  U.S.afterdeportation;eventhoughthecertificatewaspreparedfor V"! litigation,theunderlyingdocumentwhichthecertificateattested <#" didnotexistwasnot].#XXX0Xk#0XXXX?bdd݌"$r# ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?n0 4 0 4!4!2  5  .3  0 ! !  #XXX0Xin#Thoughneitherabusinessnoranofficialrecord,amurdervictims %>!% diarywasheldtobenottestimonialafterpetitionerconcededthe &$"& pointunderCrawfords3rd formulation.(Parlev.Runnels(9th ' #' Cir.2004)387F.3d1030.)?nn݌(#( ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;q0 4 2  E  .3  0 4!4!  DyingDeclarationsand ForfeiturebyMisconduct >;qHq݌l*%* ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?3r0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  DyingdeclarationsareprobablyexemptfromCrawfordsanalysis 8,', undertherationalethattheyrepresentanhistoricexceptiontothe  confrontationclausethatisincorporatedaspartofCrawfords  efforttocapturethehistoricmeaningoftheSixthAmendment. |  Althoughmanydyingdeclarationsmaybetestimonial,thereis b authorityforadmittingeventhosethatclearlyare.However,the H Courtultimatelyreservedtheissue,noting [i]fthisexception . ~ mustbeacceptedonhistoricalgrounds,itissuigeneris.  d (Crawford,supra,p.56,f.n.6.Seealso,Peoplev.Monterroso  J (2004)34Cal.4th743[withoutdecidedwhetherthestatementwas  0  testimonialunderCrawford,dyingdeclarationsdonotviolate    theconfrontationclause,becauseoftheexceptionshistorical    pedigree];accord,Peoplev.Mayo(2006)140Cal.App.4th535,   554.)?3r`r݌x  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?w0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  Alternatively,theymaybeadmissibleunderJusticeScalias D  equitabletheoryof forfeiturebymisconduct(i.e.ifyou *z  preventedthewitnessfromtestifyingyoucantbeheardto ` complainofaninabilitytocrossexaminethewitness).?ww݌F ! ! Ќ  "@ir "  @iry0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  a  .3  0< ! !  Withoutprovidingananalysisofwhatconstitutessufficient  conducttoinvokeit,JusticeScaliaadoptedtheconceptof   forfeiturebywrongdoingasaseparateanddistinct  exceptiontotheConfrontationClause: [T]heruleof t forfeiturebywrongdoing(whichweaccept)extinguishes Z confrontationclaimsonessentiallyequitablegrounds;it @ doesnotpurporttobeanalternativemeansofdetermining &v reliability.(Crawford,supraatp.62[distinguishingthe  \ exceptionfromthosebasedonthereliabilityanalysisof B Roberts].See,Peoplev.Ledesma(2006)39Cal.4th641 ( [decliningtoaddressthedoctrine,becauseadmissionofthe  hearsaytestimonywasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt  anyway];Peoplev.Giles,supra,123Cal.App.4th475,   reviewgranted(S129852)andPeoplev.Jiles(2004)122 p!  Cal.App4th504,reviewgrantedbehindGiles(S128638) V"! [twoissuesonreview:(1)whethertheforfeituredoctrine <#" appliesonthefactsofthesecases;and(2)whetherthe "$r# doctrineapplieswhenthealleged wrongdoingisthe %X $ sameastheoffenseforwhichdefendantwasontrial. %>!% Note,inJiles,thestatementswereadmittedunderEvid. &$"& Code1370].GileswasarguedinDecember.)@iryz݌' #'<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir}0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  b  .3  0< ! !  Forfeiturebywrongdoingbyitsveryterms,canapply )$) anytimeitcanbeshownthatthedefendanthadahandin l*%* thedeclarantsunavailability.However,thisequitably R+&+ createdexceptiontotheConfrontationClausemust 8,', carefullybedistinguishedfromthehearsayexceptionof  EvidenceCodesection1350,whichcreatesahearsay  exceptioninseriousfelonycasesforhearsaystatements | madebyunavailablewitnesseswhen [t]hereisclearand b convincingevidencethatthedeclarantsunavailabilitywas H knowinglycausedby,aidedby,orsolicitedbytheparty . ~ againstwhenthisstatementisoffered.UnderCrawford,  d themeaningandscopeoftheconfrontationclauseisnotto  J bedeterminedbystateshearsaylaws.@ir}݌ 0<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir\0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  c  .3  0< ! !  IssuesthatmaybeleftunaddressedinGiles:@ir\݌  <!<! Ќ  "B "  B0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !0< ! !2(  1  )3  0<!<!  whetherapplicationofthedoctrineshouldrequire x  proofthatdefendantsactsofwrongdoingwere ^  committedwiththespecificintentofpreventing D  testimonyaboutthatcrime.(See,UnitedStatesv. *z  Houlihan(1stCir.1996)96F.3d1271,1280 ` [holdingthatitdoes].Seealso,Evid.Code1350 F [statingsucharequirement];Fed.RuleofEvid. , 804(b)(6)[same].)B‡݌!! Ќ  "B "  B0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !0< ! !2(  2  )3  0<!<!  whatburdenofproofshouldcontrolthejudges  decision?TheCourtofAppealsdecisioninGiles t andtheCaliforniahearsayexceptionrequireclear Z andconvincingproof.Bߊ݌@!! Ќ  "B "  B0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !0< ! !2(  3  )3  0<!<!  whatisthescopeofthedoctrinesapplication?B݌ \!! Ќ  "CF "  CF0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !0< ! !0<!<!2(  a  )3  0!!  TheNov.Dec.2004issueofProsecutor ( magazinearguesthatthedoctrinebeapplied  inalldomesticviolencecaseswherethe  spousevictimrefusestotestify.Itisnot   hardtoseeexpansionofthisapproachto p!  includeallchildabusecaseswherethe V"! victimrecantsorrefusestotestify.CF;݌<#"!! Ќ  "CF "  CFܐ0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !0< ! !0<!<!2(  b  )3  0!!  Notably,inCrawford,itself,thedefendant %X $ kepthiswifefromtestifyingbyinvoking %>!% Washingtonsmaritalprivilege.Thestate &$"& arguedthatthedefendanthadwaivedthe ' #' protectionsoftheconfrontationclause,an (#( argumentthatcouldeasilyberecastin )$) forfeitureterms.Thestatecourtrejected l*%* thisargumentreasoningthat forcingthe R+&+ defendanttochoosebetweenthemarital 8,', privilegeandconfrontinghisspouse  presentsanuntenableHobsonschoice.  (Crawford,supra,atp.42,f.n.1).Thestate | didnotpursuethisissueonappeal,andthe b SupremeCourtspecificallynoteditwas H expressingnoopiniononthismatter.(Ibid.)CFܐ ݌. ~!! Ќ  "<3 "  <3ƕ2  XIII  .3  0 4   CrawfordisnotapplicableinproceedingsinwhichtheSixthAmendment  J doesnotapply. <3ƕ݌ 04!4! Ќ  ">; "  >;0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  ProbationRevocationHearings >;0݌   ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Traditionally,probationrevocationhearingsarenotviewedas x  beingpartofacriminalprosecution.Thus,thefullrangeofSixth ^  Amendmentprotectionsdonotapplyatarevocationproceeding. D  (Morriseyv.Brewer(1972)408U.S.471;Gagnonv.Scarpelli *z  (1973)411U.S.778.)?.݌` ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?e0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  However,thelossoflibertyatsuchaproceedingisaserious , deprivationrequiringthattheprobationerbeaccordeddueprocess  (Gagnon,supraatp.781.)Thisdueprocessguaranteerequires  thatthedefendantgenerallybegiventheright toconfrontand  crossexaminewitnesses(unlessthehearingofficerspecifically t findsgoodcausefornotallowingconfrontation.)(Id.atp.786.) Z Thus,adefendantataprobationrevocationhearinghasarightto @ confrontation,albeitonenotascompleteastheoneguaranteedat &v trialbytheSixthAmendment.?e݌ \ ! ! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir<0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  a  .3  0< ! !  InpreCrawfordcases,theCaliforniaSupremeCourts ( discussionofthevaluesprotectedbydueprocessbearsa  strikingresemblancetothosevaluesarticulatedin  Crawfordasbeingattheheartofthehistoricmeaningof   theSixthAmendment.(Seee.g.,Peoplev.Winson(1981) p!  29Cal.3d711,713714;Peoplev.Arreola(1994)74Cal. V"! 4th1144,1148.)InWinson,thecourtobservedthatthe <#" needforconfrontationisparticularlyimportantwherethe "$r# evidenceistestimonialbecauseoftheopportunityfor %X $ observationofthewitnesssdemeanor.(29Cal.3datp. %>!% 717[thestatemaynotintroduceatranscriptofawitnesss &$"& preliminaryhearingtestimonyatarevocationhearing ' #' withoutashowingofunavailabilityorothergoodcause]. (#( Butsee,Peoplev.Maki(1985)39Cal.3d707[upholding )$) theadmissibilityataprobationrevocationhearingof l*%* documentaryhearsayevidence!acarrentalinvoiceanda R+&+ hotelreceipt].)@ir<i݌8,',<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @irO0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  b  .3  0< ! !  However,postCrawford,inPeoplev.Johnson(2004)121  Cal.App.4th1409,theFirstDistricthasheldCrawford | simplyhasnoapplicationtoaprobationrevocationhearing b becausetheSixthAmendmentdoesnotcontrolsuch H hearings.Thus,itfoundnoerrorintheadmissionofa . ~ laboratoryreportshowingthedefendanttohavepossessed  d rockcocaine.Accord,0XXXXUnitedStatesv.Hall(9thCir.2005)  J 419F.3d980;UnitedStatesv.Rondeau(1stCir.2005)  0 2005U.S.App.LEXIS25224[citingagreementamong    severalcircuits].)#XXX0X#@irO|݌  <!<! Ќ  ">; "  >;t0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  PreliminaryHearings >;t݌x  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?i0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Muchofthehearsayusedatpreliminaryhearingsiscertainly D   testimonialwithinthemeaningofCrawford.Thoughthe *z  SupremeCourthasfrequentlydescribedtheconfrontationclause ` asa trialright(Barberv.Page(1968)390U.S.719; F Pennsylvaniav.Ritchie(1987)480U.S.39),ithasneverexplicitly , heldtheSixthAmendmentdoesnotapplytopreliminaryhearings.  TheCourtcameclosetosoholdinginBarber.Sinceitwasnot  essentialtotheoutcome,thesuggestionwasdicta.?i݌ ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasexpresslyheldthattheSixth Z Amendmentconfrontationclausedoesnotapplytothepreliminary @ hearing.(Whitmanv.SuperiorCourt(1991)54Cal.3d1063.)?#݌&v ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;֮0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  SuppressionMotions :Peoplev.Martinez(2005)132Cal.App.4th233, B 242:TheFourthDistrictheldthatCrawforddoesnotapplytosuppression ( motions,because,unlikeatrialinwhichthetruthissought,througha  suppressionmotion, theaccusedseekstoavoidthetruth.(Seealso,  Peoplev.Navarro(2006)138Cal.App.4th146[followingMartinez];   Peoplev.Gomez(2004)117Cal.App.4th531[Harvey/Maddenhearsay p!  didnotimplicatethe6thAmendment].)>;֮݌V"! ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;'0 4 2  D  .3  0 4!4!  SVPCommitments :Therecurrentlyappearstobeno6thA.rightto "$r# confrontationandcrossexaminationinSVPcommitmentproceedings. %X $ (Peoplev.Angulo(2005)129Cal.App.4th303[observingthat %>!% Commonwealthv.Given(2004)441Mass.741[808N.E.2d788]hasheld &$"& thatCrawforddidnotapplytoMassachusettssexoffendercivil ' #' commitmentproceedings];0XXXXCartyv.Nelson(9thCir.2005)2005 (#( U.S.App.LEXIS27407[thereisno6thrightinspecialcivilproceeding )$) anddocumentaryevidencedidnotviolate14thA.,thoughCrawfordnot l*%* mentioned]#XXX0X뤴#.)>;'T݌R+&+ ! ! Ќ   8,',  ">; "  >;D0 4 2  E  .3  0 4!4!  Sentencing!proofofpriorconvictions >;Dq݌ ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?O0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Blakely/Apprendirulesaysthe6thA.appliestoanyelementother | thanapriorconviction.?O|݌b ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  0XXXXShepardv.UnitedStates(2005)544U.S.򀀀[161L.Ed.2d205, . ~ 125S.Ct.1254,1257,2005U.S.LEXIS2205]#XXX0Xg#Ԁsays,without  d mentioningCrawford,thatthenatureofthepriormayonlybe  J provenbyreferencetochargingdocuments.?݌ 0 ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  0XXXXPeoplev.Taulton,supra,129Cal.App.4th1218[aPenalCode    section 969bpacketisnottestimonialhearsay]#XXX0Xɻ#0XXXX;#XXX0X뙼#0XXXXUnitedStatesv.   Weiland,supra,420F.3d1062[ Penitentiarypacketwasapublic x  recordunderCrawford]#XXX0Xݼ#;Peoplev.Gonzales(2005)131 ^  Cal.App.4th767,reviewdenied[neitherCrawfordnorShepard D  barredtheuseofpreliminaryhearingtestimonytoproveaprior *z  conviction,becauseunderReednowitnesscouldtestifyandthe ` defendanthadanopportunitytocrossexamineatthepreliminary F hearing].?H݌, ! ! Ќ  ">; "  0XXXX>;0 4 2  F  .3  0 4!4!  EvidenceCodesection402hearingonapreliminaryfact :Peoplev.  Smith(2003)30Cal.4th581,anotherpreCrawfordcase,examiningthe  admissibilityofpreliminaryhearingtestimonyofanunavailablewitness t underastandardsimilartothatstatedbyCrawfordasapplicableto Z confrontationchallenges,heldthathearsaycouldbeusedtoestablish @ unavailabilitywithoutimplicatingthe6thAmendment,becauseitwas &v reasonablefortheprosecutortorelyonthestatementinexercisingdue  \ diligence.#XXX0X#>;݌B ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;t0 4 2  G  .3  0 4!4!  JuvenileCases :0XXXXCrawforddoesnotapplyinjuveniledependencycases.  (InreAprilC.(2005)131Cal.App.4th599,reviewdenied.Accord,Inre  S.C.(2006)138Cal.App.4th396.)#XXX0X"#>;t݌  ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;0 4 2  H  .3  0 4!4!  Civilsummaryjudgment :Crawforddoesnotapply(Kulshrethav.First V"! UnionCommercialCorp.(2004)33Cal.4th601.)>;݌<#" ! ! Ќ  "<3 "  <32  XIV  .3  0 4   Retroactivity <32݌%X $4!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  Crawfordiscertainlyapplicabletoallcases,stateorfederal,pendingon &$"& directreviewornotyetfinalonthedateofitsdecision.(Griffithv. ' #' Kentucky(1987)479U.S.314.)>;݌(#( ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  InPeoplev.Combs,supra,34Cal.4thatp.842,theCaliforniaSupreme l*%* CourtreservedjudgmentonthequestionwhetherCrawfordapplied R+&+ retroactivelytofinaljudgmentswhilequotingJusticeRehnquists 8,', characterizationofCrawfordassettingfortha newrule.(Crawford,  supra,atp.69,concur.opinionofRehnquist,J.)Further,inInre  Sakarias(2005)35Cal.4th140,155,fn.2,withoutanalysis,theCourt | simplyobservedthattheCrawfordrulehadnotbeenannouncedatthe b timeofthepetitionerstrialanditappliedRoberts.TheFourthDistrict, H DivisionOnehasheldthatCrawfordfallswithinTeaguev.Lane(1989) . ~ 489U.S.288[anewrulethat breaksnewgroundorimposesanew  d obligationontheStatesortheFederalGovernmentisnot,withcertain  J exceptions,retroactivelyapplicable],anditisnotretroactive.(Inre  0 Moore(2005)133Cal.App.4th68,77.)>;݌   ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;<0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  MostfederalcircuitshaveconcludedthatCrawfordannouncedanewrule.   (See,Bocktingv.Bayer(9thCir.2005)399F.3d1010,1014-21,as x  amended408F.3d1127;Brownv.Uphoff(10thCir.2004)381F.3d ^  1219,1227;Mungov.Duncan(2ndCir.2004)393F.3d327,336;Dorchy D  v.Jones(6thCir.2005)398F.3d783,788;Murillov.Frank(7thCir. *z  2005)402F.3d786,789-791.Seealso,Lavev.Dretke(5thCir.2005) ` 416F.3d372,grantingaCOAonthispoint];Coreyv.U.S.(D.Maine F 2005)2005U.S.Dist.LEXIS19845,followingMurillo.)>;<i݌, ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  D  .3  0 4!4!  However,JusticeScaliadidgooutofhiswaytoargueatlengththat Our  caselawhasbeenlargelyconsistentwiththeprinciplesdrivingthe  Crawforddecision.(Crawford,supraatp.57.)Infact,allofSectionIV t oftheopinionisdedicatedtotheargumentthatRobertswasthedeparture, Z notCrawford.InBockting,supra,oneNinthCircuitjudgeconcurredina @ holdingthatCrawfordisretroactive,reasoningthatitisnotanewruleand &v neednotbeputthroughthe Summerlinstrainer.(See,Bocktingv.Bayer,  \ supra,399F.3datpp.10221023,concur.opinionofNoonan,J.)>;%݌B ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  E  .3  0 4!4!  AssumingCrawforddidannounceanewrule,onemustarguethatit  establishesa watershedruleofcriminalprocedure,therebycoming  withinoneofthetwoexceptionstoTeaguesnonretroactivityrule   (Teague,supra,489U.S.atp.311).(See,Bocktingv.Bayer,supra,399 p!  F.3datpp.1014-1021,concur.opinionofMcKeown,J.)However,in V"! dissentingfromthedenialofamotionforrehearingenbancinBockting, <#" andjoinedby8membersofthebench,JudgeOScannlainconcluded, "$r#  Bocktingconflictswiththedecisionofeveryothercircuittohave %X $ consideredtheretroactivityofCrawford;...itconflictswithourown %>!% decisioninHiracheta[v.AttorneyGeneral,anunpublishedMemorandum &$"& opinionat105Fed.Appx.937];and,...itwaswronglydecided. ' #' (Bocktingv.Bayer(9thCir.2005)418F.3d1055,1061,dis.opinionof (#( OScannlain,J.)MostfederalcircuitsfindingthatCrawfordannounceda )$) newrulehavenotfoundittobea watershedruleunderTeague. l*%* BocktingwasgrantedcertiorarisubnomWhortonv.Bockting(2006)126 R+&+ S.Ct.2017;164L.Ed.2d778.ArgumentwasheldinthiscaseonOctober 8,', 31,2006.>;/݌ ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  F  .3  0 4!4!  Asecondbartoretroactivityinfederalcourtmaybetheindependentnon | retroactivityruleimposedbyAEDPAin2254(d)(1).