October Term 2014 · Docket 13-1352
Does a preschooler's answer to a teacher count as testimony?
Ohio and Clark disagree on whether a child's statement to a teacher is testimonial evidence.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Meyer argued for Ohio. He said denying child evidence harms justice. He claimed the law protects injured children.
Mr. Fisher argued for Clark. He said they do not seek a ban on all statements. He focused on the specific context of this case.
Ms. Eisenstein argued for Clark. She said the Ohio Supreme Court erred. She claimed the teachers were not equivalent to police.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-3
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the Confrontation Clause. It asks if a child's words to a teacher count as testimony. The lower court said yes. Ohio says no. The child told a teacher about injuries. The teacher asked questions. The child answered. The state used these answers in court. The defense objected. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the defense.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 2, 2015.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
Ohio wants the Court to allow the child's statements. It argues the teacher acted like a private citizen. It seeks to admit the evidence at trial.
Clark wants the Court to exclude the child's statements. It argues the teacher acted like a police officer. It seeks to bar the evidence at trial.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
What each side says
Ohio argues the teacher's questions were not investigative. It claims the setting was not a formal interrogation. It says the Confrontation Clause does not apply here.
Clark argues the teacher acted as a state agent. It claims the questions sought evidence for prosecution. It says the Confrontation Clause applies to these statements.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if the recipient's identity matters. She focused on the intent to use statements later.
Justice Scalia asked if the Due Process Clause covers hearsay. He questioned if government agency status triggers the Confrontation Clause.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-3
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of the Confrontation Clause. It determines when child statements become testimonial. It affects how prosecutors handle evidence from young victims. It shapes the rights of defendants in abuse cases. It clarifies the role of teachers in legal proceedings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-3
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.