2005 Supreme Court term

HERSHEL HAMMON v. INDIANA.

Dockets 05-5705Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

The case concerns the scope of the Confrontation Clause, specifically whether statements made to law‑enforcement officers are testimonial.

Background and question before the Court

Justice BREYER asked, “So what's the test?”

What each side argues

Petitioner (Hershel Hammons)

According to Petitioner (Richard D. Friedman), according to Petitioner (Richard D. Friedman), the Court can decide these cases, as it decided Crawford without testing the outer bounds of the Confrontation Clause, by adopting a simple, intuitive proposition that is easily understood by ordinary lay people and capable of being passed on as a cornerstone of our fundamental liberties.

According to Petitioner (Richard D. Friedman), according to Petitioner (Richard D. Friedman), petitioner noted that California and Oregon have already adopted such statutes, and argued that the Michigan bill he testified about is “blatantly unconstitutional.”

Respondent (Indiana)

Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.

What happened at oral argument

Justice BREYER asked, “So what's the test?”

According to Justice BREYER, justice BREYER expressed concern that Crawford removes the Confrontation Clause from the hearsay rule, potentially making testimony testimonial even when not hearsay.

Justice ALITO asked whether a highly incriminating statement to a known law‑enforcement officer that does not specifically identify a person falls within the test.

According to Justice Stevens, justice STEVENS questioned whether the emergency continued at the time the witness’s words were repeated.

According to Justice BREYER, justice BREYER posed a hypothetical about an undercover agent or a member of the KKK revealing himself.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • baffb80e8c5b6c2dd384-r1-3192486417bd087e.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.