Conviction Based on Out of Court Statements Reversed

By: Wallin & Klarich

Many times, out of court statements are the only evidence available to the prosecution at trial. This usually happens because the victim is unwilling or unavailable to testify at trial. For example, a prosecutor would want a cop to be able to testify that a victim told that officer that the defendant hit him or her if the alleged victim is now unwilling to testify.

The rules of evidence require that a person must be present in court and subject to a cross examination by opposing counsel in order for his/her statements against the defendant to be admitted into evidence. The United States Supreme Court upheld this requirement in Crawford v. Washington. The effect of this decision is that statements given to the police after the emergency part of the investigation is done will not be admissible as evidence against the defendant when the witness is unavailable to testify in court.

Hiring an experienced attorney from the beginning of your case will help you to avoid this prosecutorial tactic. However, if you or a loved one have been convicted based solely on an out of court statement and the witness or victim was not available for cross examination, you should call the Southern California appeals attorneys at Wallin & Klarich immediately. Our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling appeals cases. The experienced attorneys at Wallin & Klarich know the appellate process well and have a good track record in getting our clients post conviction relief. Our attorneys can be reached by phone at 1-888-280-6839 or through our website at

Posted In: Criminal Appeals