Crawford v. Washington — Rehnquist, J., dissenting

Summary

Justice Rehnquist dissents from the Court’s decision to overrule Ohio v. Roberts, arguing that the new testimonial‑versus‑nontestimonial distinction lacks a solid historical foundation and unnecessarily disrupts established precedent. He maintains that the Confrontation Clause does not categorically require exclusion of all testimonial statements and that stare decisis should have preserved Roberts.