Michigan v. Bryant

Michigan v. Bryant
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 5, 2010 Decided February 28, 2011
Full case name	Michigan, Petitioner v. Richard Perry Bryant
Docket nos.	09-150
Citations	562 U.S. ___ (more)
Prior history	Defendant convicted at trial; affirmed, case n°247039, 2004 WL 1882661 (Mich. Ct. App., 2004); vacated and remanded in light of Davis v. Washington, 477 Mich. 902, 722 N.W.2d 797 (2006); affirmed anew, case n°247039, 2007 WL 675471 (Mich. Ct. App., 2006); reversed, 483 Mich. 132, 768 N.W.2d 65 (2009)
Subsequent history	Remanded to Michigan Supreme Court.
Argument	Oral argument
Holding
The statement was not testimonial and thus its admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito
Concurrence	Thomas
Dissent	Scalia
Dissent	Ginsburg
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. ___ (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered a criminal defendant's Confrontation Clause right regarding statements made by a deceased declarant.

Background

Detroit police dispatched to a gas station parking lot found Anthony Covington mortally wounded. Covington told them that he had been shot by Bryant outside Bryant's house, and had then driven himself to the lot. At trial, the officers testified about what Covington said. Bryant was found guilty of murder. The testimony of the officers was challenged as testimonial hearsay. Ultimately, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed his conviction, holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, as explained in Crawford v. Washington rendered Covington's statements inadmissible testimonial hearsay..

Opinion of the Court

The United States Supreme Court reversed the Michigan Supreme Court, and held that the victim's statements were not testimonial and that they were properly admitted at trial. The test the court used was the primary purpose test. That test draws a distinction between statements made to the authorities that are aimed at gathering facts for the purpose of prosecution versus statements made because there is an ongoing emergency.^[1]

References

External links

• Michigan v. Bryant Resource Page Containing background materials and links to key materials on the case.
• Slip opinion from the Supreme Court
• Opinion by the Michigan Supreme Court
• Michigan v. Bryant coverage on SCOTUSblog