The U.S. Supreme Court case, Michael D. Crawford v. Washington (2003), revolved around the issue of whether out-of-court statements could be used as evidence in court if they were testimonial in nature and the person who made them was not available for cross-examination by defense attorneys. The petitioner, Michael D. Crawford, was convicted of assault after his wife's recorded statement to police about an incident involving him stabbing a man who allegedly tried to rape her was admitted into evidence during trial even though she did not testify due to spousal privilege laws in Washington state where the crime occurred. Crawford appealed his conviction arguing that admission of this statement violated his Sixth Amendment right under Confrontation Clause which guarantees criminal defendants a right "to be confronted with witnesses against them". The Supreme Court agreed with Crawford ruling that when testimonial statements are at issue, the only way such hearsay evidence can be admissible is if there is no opportunity for defendant to cross-examine witness either because they are unavailable or refuse to testify and it had been previously subjected to cross examination.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Michael D. Crawford v. Washington, Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices O'Connor and Breyer, argued that the majority's decision to overturn Ohio v. Roberts was unnecessary and overly broad in its interpretation of "testimonial" statements under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. They contended that this new definition would create confusion in lower courts about what constitutes a testimonial statement and could potentially exclude reliable evidence from trial proceedings without any clear benefit to defendants' rights or overall fairness in trials. The dissenters also disagreed with how strictly the majority applied historical precedents regarding confrontation rights, arguing instead for a more flexible approach based on modern legal standards and practical considerations.