Michigan v. Bryant

Summary

The Court held that the victim’s statements to police identifying the shooter were not testimonial under the Confrontation Clause because the primary purpose of the interrogation was to meet an ongoing emergency. The Court emphasized an objective assessment of the circumstances, including the victim’s medical condition and the unknown shooter’s threat to public safety. Justices Scalia and Ginsburg dissented, arguing the statements were testimonial, and Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment on different grounds focusing on formality.