Changes

The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has applied this to statements made by other witnesses to the police. ''[[Crawford v. Washington]]'', 541 U.S. 36, 38 (2004).

The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has applied this to statements made by other witnesses to the police. ''[[Crawford v. Washington]]'', 541 U.S. 36, 38 (2004).

Some have described the Confrontation Clause as simply a form of the rule against the admissibility of [[hearsay]] as evidence.  But the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has cautioned:

Some have described the Confrontation Clause as simply a form of the rule against the admissibility of [[hearsay]] as evidence.  But as [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[John Harlan II]] cautioned:<ref>''Dutton v. Evans'', 400 U.S. 74, 97 n.4 (Harlan, J., concurring) (emphasis added).</ref>

:Reliance on the Due Process Clauses would also have the virtue of subjecting rules of evidence to constitutional scrutiny in civil and criminal trials alike. It is exceedingly rare for the common law to make admissibility of evidence turn on whether the proceeding is civil or criminal in nature. See 1 Wigmore, supra, § 4, at 16-17. This feature of our jurisprudence is a further indication that the '''Confrontation Clause, which applies only to criminal prosecutions''', was never intended as a constitutional standard for testing rules of evidence.

:Reliance on the Due Process Clauses would also have the virtue of subjecting rules of evidence to constitutional scrutiny in civil and criminal trials alike. It is exceedingly rare for the common law to make admissibility of evidence turn on whether the proceeding is civil or criminal in nature. See 1 Wigmore, supra, § 4, at 16-17. This feature of our jurisprudence is a further indication that the '''Confrontation Clause, which applies only to criminal prosecutions''', was never intended as a constitutional standard for testing rules of evidence.