Michigan v. Bryant

562 U.S. 344, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011)

Facts of the Case

The fatal shooting of Anthony Covington (victim) and the subsequent trial of Richard Perry Bryant (defendant) was the issue. Covington was found by police at a gas station with a gunshot wound, and before his death, he identified Bryant as his shooter. The statements Covington made to police officers at the gas station were admitted at Bryant’s trial as excited utterances.

However, the Michigan Supreme Court later ruled these statements inadmissible, concluding they were testimonial and thus violated the Confrontation Clause as interpreted by Davis v. Washington.

Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether Covington’s statements fell within an exception to the Confrontation Clause because they addressed an ongoing emergency rather than describing past events for potential prosecution.

Procedural Posture and History

  1. Anthony Covington is shot and later dies from his injuries.
  2. Police officers gather Covington’s statements at the scene, identifying Richard Bryant as the shooter.
  3. Bryant is convicted of second-degree murder, with Covington’s statements used as evidence.
  4. The Michigan Supreme Court reverses this conviction, deeming Covington’s statements inadmissible testimonial hearsay.
  5. The case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final ruling on the admissibility of the statements under the Confrontation Clause.

I.R.A.C. Format


Whether the statements made by a dying victim to police officers regarding the identity and location of his shooter are testimonial, thus rendering their admission at trial a violation of the Confrontation Clause.

Rule of Law

Statements are non-testimonial when made during an ongoing emergency to assist police in resolving that emergency; they are testimonial when there is no ongoing emergency and the primary purpose is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. The determination of whether an ongoing emergency exists is highly context-dependent and must be assessed objectively based on the totality of circumstances.

Reasoning and Analysis

In deciding whether Covington’s statements were testimonial, the Court applied an objective analysis to determine the primary purpose of the interrogation by police. The Court considered the nature of the emergency, noting that unlike domestic disputes where separation from the assailant can end the threat, cases involving firearms could present a broader danger to police and public safety.

The Court observed that Covington’s dire medical condition and urgent inquiries about emergency medical services indicated his focus was on addressing the immediate crisis rather than on future legal proceedings. Similarly, the police officers’ actions were consistent with addressing an ongoing threat rather than conducting a formal investigative interview.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that Covington’s statements were made with the primary purpose of enabling police to meet an ongoing emergency and were therefore non-testimonial. This finding was based on an objective assessment of all participants’ actions and statements, as well as the broader context and exigencies of the situation.


The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court, holding that Covington’s statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because they served to assist police in responding to an ongoing emergency rather than to establish facts for a future criminal prosecution.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg dissented, arguing that Covington’s statements were indeed testimonial because they described past events and were not made during an ongoing emergency. They contended that admitting these statements without cross-examination violated the Confrontation Clause.

Key Takeaways

  1. The primary purpose of questioning by police is critical in determining whether statements are testimonial under the Confrontation Clause.
  2. The context of an emergency situation can extend beyond immediate danger to one individual and include broader threats to public safety.
  3. An objective assessment of all participants’ actions and statements, as well as situational context, is necessary to determine if an ongoing emergency exists.

Relevant FAQs of this case


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Evidence