Supreme Court Clarifies the “Ongoing Emergency” in Michigan v. Bryant
Dec 01, 2011
Review Michigan v. Bryant as a landmark case for defining ongoing emergencies and learn how this precedent impacts prosecution strategies around the admissibility of non-testimonial statements.
Resource type
Strategies in Brief
Author(s)
Herb Tanner (Director of the Violence Against Women Project for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of MI); John Wilkinson (Attorney Advisor, AEquitas)
Share
This article provides an overview of Michigan v. Bryant, a case involving the admissibility of a dying victim’s statements to responding police in view of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Court held that the statements were made to meet an ongoing emergency and were therefore nontestimonial, making them admissible under the principles of Crawford v. Washington. The authors conclude that Bryant gives criminal justice practitioners expanded guidance on what constitutes an ongoing emergency, which enhances the prosecution's ability to prove a case when the victim is not available to testify.