On June 27, Professor Traum wrote a guest blog post titled "Clark Constricts Right to Confront Accusers" for the Hamilton and Griffin on Rights blog.
"Last week in Ohio v. Clark, the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause did not apply to the accusatory statements of a three-year old child that led to the defendant’s felony convictions. All nine justices agreed that the child’s statements were not 'testimonial' under Crawford v. Washington ... " Professor Traum wrote.
She continued, "Although Clark appears to be a straightforward application of the primary purpose test, it breaks new ground by suggesting several new default rules, namely, that statements to non-police, statements by young children, and statements elicited based on a safety concern are not testimonial under Crawford. Though Clark adheres to Crawford analysis, it significantly limits a defendant’s ability to confront his accusers."
Professor Traum's research focuses on criminal adjudication and sentencing, immigration, and habeas corpus.
