Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Kent Scheidegger has this post at Crime and Consequences:
Parts II and III of Justice Alito's plurality opinion are actively opposed by a majority of the Court, so relying on them to get evidence in is risky, to put it mildly. Let's focus on Part IV. For the proposition that the report in this case is not "testimonial," the plurality says the report was not testimonial because it was not focused on a particular suspect, while Justice Thomas's concurrence says it is not testimonial because it lacked the formality associated with such things as depositions, affidavits, or certificates of fact.
Which of these is the narrower grounds? I have no idea.