Who is Anna Chapman?

Anna Chapman is a Russian national, who when living in New York City, was arrested on suspicion of working for the Russian Federation’s external intelligence agency. Anna Chapman along with nine other co-workers was accused of such felonious actions on June 27, 2010. Anna Chapman was formally charged with coercing with the Illegals Program spy ring, which operated under the aforementioned external intelligence agency of the Russian Federation.

Anna Chapman: A Short Biography:

Anna Chapman spy was born in Volgograd and her father was employed in the Russian Embassy, located in Nairobi, Kenya. Based on a testimonial given by Chapman’s ex-husband, Chapman’s father, Vasily Kushchenko, operated as a senior KGB official.

In 2001, Anna Chapman spy moved to London where she held positions at NetJets and Barclays Bank. While in London, Anna Chapman Spy, met her eventual husband, Alex Chapman. The couple eventually moved to Moscow, where Anna Chapman Spy received dual Russian-British citizenship and a British passport.

IN 2006, Anna Chapman Spy, moved to New York City—one block from Wall Street. While in New York, Chapman claimed to have owned and operated PropertyFinder LLC, a website committed to selling real estate throughout the world. In 2010, Anna Chapman Spy was extradited back to Russia where she was appointed to the public council of Young Guard of United Russia. Based on statements given by the organization, Anna Chapman Spy is said to be aiding youths through educational programs. According to several news outlets, Anna Chapman now holds as a job as an adviser of investment and innovation issues to the President of a leading bank in Moscow—this financial institution handles payments on behalf of state and private sector enterprises in the Russian aerospace industry.

Anna Chapman’s illegal Activities:

Law enforcement officials of the United States government claimed that Anna Chapman Spy, along with a network of other individuals, engaged in espionage for the Russian Federation. Anna Chapman Spy’s conspiracy was leaked when an undercover FBI agent attempted to draw her into a trap at a Manhattan coffee shop.

The undercover agent offered Anna Chapman Spy a fake passport, with instructions to forward the document to another spy within the network. When the agent asked Chapman, “Are you ready for this step” Chapman replied, “Of Course.” Chapman, who accepted the passport, realized it was a possible sting operation. Upon figuring this out, she called her father in Moscow and ultimately ended up handing the passport to a local police station. For accepting the passport in the first place and following the instructions of the undercover agent, Anna Chapman spy was arrested shortly after turning the passport in.

After being formally charged, Anna Chapaman, along with nine other individuals, became part of a swap deal between the United States and Russia. For her alleged role in this ring, Chapman was further punished when her British citizenship was revoked by the British Home Secretary Office.

The Background of Ashcroft v. Iqbal:

Ashcroft v. Iqbal was a landmark case where the United States Supreme Court held that top government officials were not liable for actions of their subordinates absent evidence if they ordered alleged discriminatory activity.

Javad Iqbal, who worked as a cable television installer, was arrested in New York in November of 2001 for charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and fraud in regards to identification documents. In response to the arrest, Iqbal, claimed that FBI officials carried out a discrimination policy by classifying him as a person of “high interest” in alignment with the September 11th attacks. Iqbal believed he was targeted because of his religion, race and national origin.

While awaiting his trial for conspiracy and fraud charges, Iqbal was placed in an Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit for over six months. Iqbal claimed that while in this unit, he was beaten and denied medical attention for the injuries suffered.

Iqbal ultimately plead guilty to using another individual’s Social Security card and served a prison term of 8 months. After being released, Iqbal filed a claim that the authorities violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights as well as a number of statutory claims that sought reimbursement of compensatory and punitive damages.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal Trial:

The District Court system found that the facts within Iqbal’s complaint were sufficient; this ruling was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court then granted a review of the case, in part, to address “whether allegations that high-level government officials had knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing by subordinate officials and whether this knowledge was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss in an action brought under previously-rendered decisions.

In a 5 to 4 decision, Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court ruled that Iqbal’s complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to offer a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination. The Supreme Court of the United States found that according to precedent, Government officials could not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates.

The Case Profile of Ashcroft v. Iqbal:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Ashcroft v. Iqbal’:

Date of the Trial: Ashcroft v. Iqbal was argued on December 10, 2008

United States Reports Case Number: 556 U.S.

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Ashcroft v. Iqbal was decided on May 18, 2009

Legal Venue of Ashcroft v. Iqbal: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Kennedy

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that top government officials are not liable for the actions of their subordinates absent evidence if they are alleged of committing discriminatory activity.

Who is Bill Clinton?

Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States. His policy was typically described as “New Democrat” for he enacted the North American Free Trade Agreement and welfare reform. Bill Clinton is beloved by the majority of Democrats throughout the United States; under Bill Clinton, the United States enjoyed the continuation of the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history. Under President Bill Clinton, the Congressional Budget Office reported a surplus in 2000—the last year of Clinton’s office.

Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any American president since World War II; since his time as President, Bill Clinton has been involved in numerous public speaking engagements and various humanitarian efforts throughout the world.

Bill Clinton Impeachment Case:

On December 19, 1998 Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives for charges of obstruction of justice and perjury. These charges stemmed from a sexual encounter Clinton had with then 22-year-old intern, Monica Lewinsky. The two engaged in sexual activities; however, Paula jones (an Arkansas State employee) essentially started the investigation by filing a sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton. The House voted to impeach Bill Clinton based on allegations that the President lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit.

The Monica Lewinsky scandal was detailed in the Starr Report; a comprehensive investigation submitted to the House of Representatives that provided substantial and credible information that President Clinton engaged in sexual acts with Monica Lewinsky then lied about it while under oath.

The House of Representatives initiated impeachment hearings before the mid-term elections; to hold these proceedings the Republican leadership called for a lame duck session in December of 1998.

The two charges against Bill Clinton were for perjury and an obstruction of justice. The perjury charge arose from Clinton’s testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during the Paula Jones suit. The obstruction of justice charge stemmed from Bill Clinton’s actions during the subsequent investigation of the aforementioned testimony.

Acquittal by the United States Senate:

Following the impeachment of Bill Clinton issued by the House of Representatives, the United States Senate was forced to confirm or reverse the previously-rendered the decision. The Senate began trial on January 7, 1999 with Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court William Rehnquist residing over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

The case was argued by the prosecuting side from January 14-16, where the counsel detailed the discussion of facts and elucidated upon the background of the case; articles of the impeachment and excerpts from Clinton’s videotaped grand jury testimony were interpreted and applied to the laws governing perjury and obstruction of justice. Using this evidence, the prosecuting side justified the removal of the President from office by virtue of a “deliberate corruption of the nation’s system of justice through perjury and obstruction of justice.

Clinton’s defense argued that President Clinton’s grand jury testimony had too many inconsistencies to be regarded as a clear case of perjury and that the investigation, along with the subsequent impeachment, had been tainted by a partisan political agenda. The defense also stated that the President’s high approval rating (more than 70 percent) indicated that his ability to govern had not been impaired by the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

On February 9th, following the delivery of both side’s arguments, the United States Senate began a closed-door deliberation to decide the President’s fate. On February 12th, the United States Senate emerged and voted on the articles of impeachment; a two-thirds majority (67 votes) was needed to convict and subsequently remove Bill Clinton from office.

The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against conviction, while the obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against conviction. The acquittal by the United States Senate allowed Bill Clinton to serve his remaining two years in office.

What is the Black Sox Scandal?

The Black Sox Scandal refers to an incident that arose during the 1919 World Series. During this event, eight members of the Chicago White Sox, intentionally threw (lost on purpose) the games and essentially gave the Cincinnati Reds a World Series crown. By intentionally losing the World Series, those involved in the Black Sox Scandal could cash in on their teams misfortune. The model of a fix is very simple; the players involved in the Black Sox Scandal intentionally play poorly, causing their team to lose, while conducting deals with gamblers and organized crime members who bet heavily on the Reds to win. Although the team loses from their poor play, those aligned with the Black Sox Scandal cash in on the proceeds obtained from the wagers.

The plan to throw the World Series was instituted by the White Sox first basemen, Arnold Gandil, a prominent member of the team and a man who was commonly linked to the underworld of organized crime. Gandil persuaded Joseph Sullivan—a friend and professional gamble—that a fix could be pulled off if enough players were heavily compensated.

New York gangster, Arnold Rothstein supplied the eight members of the White Sox with money through his chief lieutenant, Abe Attell.

Gandil got numerous players on the team to agree to fix the World Series; the majority of the members aligned with the scandal were fueled by their dislike for then owner, Charles Comiskey.

Gandil enlisted starting pitchers, Eddie Cicotte, Claude Williams, outfielder Oscar Flesch and shortstop Charles Risberg.

Before the series started, gamblers involved in the fix bet heavy money on the Cincinnati Reds. Although the series lasted 8 games (best of 9) the Cincinnati Reds ultimately won and claimed the World Series in 1919.

Fallout from the Black Sox Scandal:

Following the conclusion, rumors swirled regarding the fix. Disproportional gambling revenues were awarded to those who bet on Cincinnati and numerous leaks trickled down to the owners of both clubs. The rumors eventually grew so strong that the Chicago grand jury conducted a formal investigation into the Black Sox scandal in September of 1920. During this investigation, two players, Cicotte and the White Sox’s star player, “Shoeless” Joe Jackson, confessed their participation in the Black Sox Scandal.

Following the admission of guilt, the players who participated in the Black Sox Scandal were suspended and subsequently banned from participating in Major league Baseball.

Shoeless Joe Jackson’s Involvement in the Black Sox Scandal:

The extent of Shoeless Joe Jackson’s participation in the Black Sox Scandal is somewhat muddled and extremely controversial. Shoeless Joe Jackson originally confessed to having accepted $5,000 from the gamblers; however, he later recanted his admission to guilt and protested his innocence until his death. Throughout the investigation and the years following the banishment, fellow teammates claimed that Shoeless Joe Jackson was not involved in the Black Sox Scandal and never attended any meetings with the gamblers or organized crime members.

Shoeless Joe Jackson was the star of the Chicago White Sox and played quiet well in the World Series—he led the team in batting over the eight games with a .375 average. That being said, his admission to guilt and some sketchy plays made in the field prompted Major League Baseball to suspend Shoeless Joe Jackson for life.

The Background of Boumediene v. Bush:

Boumediene v. Bush was a writ of habeas corpus that was made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene—a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was held in military detention by the United States at Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba.

Guantanamo Bay is not formally a part of the United States and under the terms of the country’s lease with Cuba, the Cubans retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdictional control.

The case of Boumediene v. Bush was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States to ultimately challenge the legality of Boumediene’s detention at Guantanamo Bay.

The Boumediene v. Bush Trial:

On June 12, 2008, Associated Justice Kennedy decided, for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners on Guantamo bay had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the United States, by virtue of its jurisdiction and control over the base, that the country maintains “de facto” sovereignty over the territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory. This label ultimately stated that the aliens detained at the base were enemy combatants and were entitled to the writ of habeas corpus, which is protected in Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. This ruling reversed the lower court’s decision, which stated that constitutional rights do not extend to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

The Case Profile of Boumediene v. Bush:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Boumediene v. Bush’:

Date of the Trial: Boumediene v. Bush was argued on December 5, 2007

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

United States Reports Case Number: 533 U.S. 723

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Boumediene v. Bush was decided on June 12, 2008

Legal Venue of Boumediene v. Bush: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John G. Roberts

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, stated that suspects of foreign terrorism who are held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in the United States Court System.

Associated Legislation with regard to Boumediene v. Bush: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Boumediene v. Bush trial:

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

The Background of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale:

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale was a landmark court case of the Supreme Court of the United States, which effectively overturned the New Jersey Supreme Court’s application of the New Jersey public accommodations law—a statute that forced the Boy Scouts of America to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale.

James Dale was expelled from the Boy Scouts of America, after officials of the organizations observed an interview and read a publication that was produced by Dale when he was a student at Rutgers University and the co-president of the Lesbian/Gay student alliance.

The Supreme Court of the United Sates held that the lower court’s decision unconstitutionally violated the rights of the Boy Scouts of America, which allows any private organization to exclude an individual from membership when “the presence of a person affects, in a significant way, the overall organization’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.” The courts ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of the Boy Scout of America’s expressive message and allowing homosexuals to assume the role of a leader within the organization would be interfering with the group’s message. This ruling was appealed to the United States Supreme Court where Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated that a private organization is allowed, under specific and certain criteria, to exclude a person from receiving a membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association.

The Case Profile of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘boy scouts of America v. dale’:

Date of the Trial: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale was argued on April 26, 2000

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale was decided on June 28, 2000.

Legal Venue of boy scouts of America v. dale: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts of America by stating that a private organization is allowed to exclude a person from receiving membership. This right, awarded to private organizations throughout the United States is protected under the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, which grants the right to freedom of association in spite of various state or anti-discrimination laws.

The Background of Brown v. Mississippi:

Brown v. Mississippi was a landmark decision handed-down by the United States Supreme Court. In Brown v. Mississippi, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant’s confessions, when extracted by law enforcement agents, cannot be entered as evidence for it directly violates the Due Process Clause.

Raymond Stuart, on March 30, 1934, was murdered; Arthur Ellington, Henry Shields and Ed Brown (three black tenant farmers) were arrested for the murder of Stuart. During the trial, the prosecution’s primary evidence was the defendant’s confession to the local Mississippi law enforcement agents. During this trial; however, witnesses admitted that the defendant’s confessed only after being subjected to savage beatings and whippings by the officers. Although torture was used by the officers to extract confessions from the defending parties, the confessions were nevertheless admitted into evidence—the confessions were used in the subsequent one-day trial.

Through the confessions, the defendants were ultimately convicted by the jury and sentenced to death; the convictions were later affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

In a unanimous decision in Brown v. Mississippi, the United States Supreme Court reversed the convictions for the defendants. It was decided in Brown v. Mississippi, that a defendant’s confessions cannot be entered as evidence if it is extracted by a law enforcement agent—this process of extraction violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant’s protection against self-incrimination. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause was applied to this provision to be upheld by each individual state.

The Case Profile of Brown v. Mississippi:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Brown v. Mississippi’:

Date of the Trial: Brown v. Mississippi was argued on January 10, 1936

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the State of Mississippi against Brown within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Brown, along with two other men, was accused of murdering Raymond Stuart. The convictions were affirmed by the lower court systems because Brown, along with the other men, admitted to killing Brown after being tortured and beaten by police officers.

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Brown v. Mississippi was decided on February 17 1936

Legal Venue of Brown v. Mississippi: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brown by stating that a defendant’s confession, when extracted through police violence, cannot be entered as violence for the process to acquire such an admission, violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Background:

The case of Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire was a legal matter ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the United States Supreme Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, which is a limitation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech for all Americans.

In November of 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a devout Jehovah’s Witness, was using a sidewalk as a pulpit in downtown Rochester, New Hampshire. Chaplinsky used the sidewalk to pass out pamphlets and preach that organized religion was a “racket.” The rhetoric eventually sparked the gathering of a throng, which in turn, caused a scene. A police officer, Roman Chaplinsky, removed Chaplinsky and brought him to police headquarters. Chaplinsky, who ended up verbally attacking the town’s marshal, was later arrested, based on a New Hampshire statute, which prevented the delivery of intentionally offensive speech directed at others in a public setting.

Under New Hampshire’s Offensive Conduct law, it is unlawful for any individual to address another person with “offensive, derisive or annoying words to any other individual who is lawfully in any public place or street.” Chaplinsky was initially fined, but he eventually appealed, while claiming that the New Hampshire law was vague and infringed upon his First and Fourteenth Amendments rights to free speech.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Trial:

In a unanimous decision, the courts upheld the arrest. Justice Frank Murphy stated a two-tier theory of the First Amendment; he claimed that “well-defined and narrowly limited” categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection. As a result, “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and any insulting words neither contribute to the expression of ideas nor possessed any social value in the search for truth.”

The Case Profile of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire:

Legal Classification: Constitutional Law

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by The State of New Hampshire against Walter Chaplinsky within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Chaplinsky was arrested and subsequently for disturbing the peace with rhetoric that was viewed as harmful and empty of any social value.

Legal Venue of Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Harlan Stone

Verdict Delivered: A criminal conviction or arrest for causing a breach of the peace through the delivery of “fighting words” does not infringe on an individual’s Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment.

Associated Legislation with regard to Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire:

An individual’s rights latent in the First and Fourteenth Amendment are not infringed if the person elicits violence or a disruption through the delivery of aggressive or hateful rhetoric.

The Background of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia:

Cherokee v. Georgia was a United States Supreme court case that was instituted by the Cherokee nation; a prominent Native American tribe. The Cherokee Nation sough the federal injunction against Georgia law, which ultimately deprived the group of receiving fundamental rights within the tribe’s boundaries. Although the case was filed, the Supreme Court did not review the matter on its merits; the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation had no original jurisdiction in the underlying matter, for the tribe was a dependent nation with a relationship to the United States.

On December 20th of 1828, the Georgia State legislature enacted a series of laws, which in essence, stripped the Cherokee Nation of their rights under the underlying laws of the state.

The Trial:

During June of 1830, a delegation of Cherokee (led by Chief John Ross), selected former attorney general, William Wirt, to defend Cherokee rights before the United States Supreme Court. The Cherokee Nation requested an injunction, claiming that the state legislation of Georgia had created the laws to “annihilate the Cherokee Nation as a political society.” In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Wirt argued that the Cherokees were a foreign nation in the sense of the United States’ Constitution and legal framework; therefore they should not be subject to Georgia’s exacting jurisdiction.

Using this argument in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Wirt asked the Supreme Court to rule the state’s law as null and void on the grounds that Georgia violated the United States’ Constitution, as well as various United States-Cherokee treaties and United States intercourse laws.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the suit, for it said that the Cherokee had no original jurisdiction, because the people were not a state. Despite their claim in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Supreme Court labeled the tribe as a “denominated domestic dependent nation”

The Case Profile of #

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled Cherokee Nation v. Georgia:

Date of the Trial: June 15, 1830

Legal Classification: United States Constitutional Law Article III

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia:

In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, The Cherokee Nation accused the Georgia legislation of violating Article III of the United States constitution by stripping the Nation of their land and legal rights.

United States Reports Case Number: 30 U.S. 1

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: December 31st, 1831

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia:

The prosecuting team was comprised of the Cherokee Nation, represented by Chief John Ross and Attorney General William Wirt. The defending party in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was the state legislation of Georgia.
Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled that they did not have original jurisdiction according to Article III of the United States Constitution to hear a suit filed by the Cherokee Nation, which, as a Native American tribe, was not a sovereign nation.

The Background of Crawford v. Washington:

Crawford v. Washington is a famous United States Supreme Court decision that ultimately reformulated the standards for determining when an admission of hearsay statements (in a  criminal case) can be permitted under the Confrontation Clause—a fundamental clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court system stated that cross-examination is mandated to admit prior testimonial statements offered by witnesses that have become unavailable for questioning.

Michael Crawford and his wife Sylvia confronted Ken Lee over an allegation that Lee had attempted to sexually abuse and rape Mrs. Crawford. During this confrontation, Michael Crawford stabbed Ken lee in the torso. After committing the assault, Crawford claimed that he had acted in self-defense, for he believed that Lee had reached for a weapon. In response, Ken Lee denied these accusations and claimed that he did not do anything to prompt Crawford into committing such an act of violence.

Both Michael and Sylvia Crawford were questioned by police upon receiving their Miranda Warning. Michael Crawford told police that was not sure if Ken lee had a weapon, but he believed at the time of the attack, that he did. Sylvia Crawford, who was interrogated separately, at first claimed that she did not see the attack, but after further questioning, she claimed that she did observe the attack and claimed that Lee was not holding a weapon nor committing any movement to suggest the presence of a weapon.

Crawford v. Washington Trial:

During trial, Sylvia Crawford could not be compelled to testify, since under Washington law of spousal privilege, a spouse is not allowed to testify in court without the defendant spouse’s consent.

The deputy prosecutor, presiding over the case, sought to introduce Sylvia Crawford’s statement to the law authorities as evidence that Mr. Crawford had no reason to believe that he was in danger when making the attack—Out-of-court statements by individuals other than the accused party are excluded as hearsay. In this situation, the court allowed the statement to be admitted on the basis that the evidence was reliable, for it was partially corroborated by Mr. Crawford’s statement to the local authorities.

The Washington Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the trial court. The court, after applying a nine-factor test to determine whether Mrs. Crawford’s statement was reliable, determined that it was not, and gave a number of reasons why.

The verdict was eventually appealed to the state’s Supreme Court, where the system reinstated the initial conviction, ruling that Mrs. Crawford’s statement was reliable. Specifically, the Washington State Supreme Court noted that the Crawford’s statements interlocked and as a result, concluded that Mrs. Crawford’s statements were admissible.

This verdict was brought to the United States Supreme Court, where it was held that the use of Mrs. Crawford’s recorded statement made during police interrogation violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against the individual where the spouse, as a result of the state law marital privilege, did not testify at the trial and was therefore unavailable.