Michigan v. Bryant

Background

A man named Anthony Covington was found bleeding and mortally wounded in a gas station parking lot. Police arrived within minutes and asked him what had happened, who shot him, and where the shooting occurred. Covington said “Rick” shot him through a back door at about 3 a.m., gave a description of the shooter, and spoke for five to ten minutes before emergency medical services took him to the hospital. He died hours later. Richard Bryant was later charged and convicted for the murder, and the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the conviction because it treated Covington’s statements as testimonial hearsay.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined whether Covington’s statements were the kind of out-of-court testimony that the Constitution’s right to confront witnesses forbids unless the witness can be cross-examined. The Court applied its prior cases about “testimonial” statements and focused on whether the questioning was aimed at meeting an ongoing emergency. Looking objectively at the scene, the officers’ questions, Covington’s severe condition, and the unknown location of the shooter, the majority concluded the main purpose of the questions was to get help and end a public danger. Therefore the statements were nontestimonial and their admission did not violate the right to confront witnesses.

Real world impact

The Court vacated the Michigan Supreme Court’s reversal and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this ruling. The decision means that statements made by seriously injured victims at the scene, when officers are trying to address an ongoing threat, can be used at trial even if the victim later dies and cannot be cross-examined. The Court left it to state courts to decide other evidence rules, like whether the statements fit state hearsay exceptions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas agreed in judgment but stressed lack of formality made the statements non-testimonial. Justices Scalia and Ginsburg dissented, arguing the victim’s own intent mattered and that the statements were testimonial and should have required confrontation; Ginsburg also noted an unresolved dying-declaration question under state law.