Recently, the Supreme Court Justice Scalia handed down or fired away 6-2 decision where it allowed police officers to testify about what a mortality wounded crime victim said about the identity and description of his shooter before he died.

The 6-2 decision found police were confronted with an unresolved situation at the crime scene involving an at large suspect and as the case law has evolved since the Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S., 36, statements made in the immediate consequence of a crime are not testimonial if the statements have been made to the Police or other emergency personnel for the primary purpose of preventing further harm.

On the other hand if the primary purpose is to gather evidence of crime, a statement is barred under the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that the defendant has a right “to be confronted by the witnesses against him.”

The New York Court of Appeals has described dying declaration as ‘dangerous’ because they can be made with ‘no fear of prosecution’ for perjury and without the test of cross-examination,”People v. Bartolini”, 285 NY 433(1941).

According to my point of view, I found two issues here I can see:-

1. The veracity of the statement by the deceased.

2. The faithful reproduction of that statement by the cop.

If the case posses the recording equipment or other witnesses, then in theory the case only have to deal with point 1.

But only if one person is in witness to the statement, I think the case have to treat it as regular hearsay.

Supreme Court upholds “Dying Declaration” in US

Report by Vibhanshu Vaibhav