Sidney Butler v. Illinois

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. In explaining the parameters of the Confrontation Clause, this Court, in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 fn. 9 (2004), held that admission of out-of-court testimonial statements are admissible “so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain [them].” In this case, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the declarant’s out-of-court statements were admissible despite her inability to remember not only the prior testimonial statements, but the offense itself. The question presented here is: When a witness makes out-of-court, concededly testimonial statements accusing the defendant as the perpetrator of a crime, but at trial is unable to remember the offense itself or those prior accusations, was she available to defend or explain the statements under this Court’s holding in Crawford, and does the introduction of those testimonial statements violate the Confrontation Clause?