Which statement about police reports and the business records doctrine is true?

Which statement about police reports and the business records doctrine is true?

• A. A police report prepared for use in a prosecution is testimonial; a police report prepared for an emergency is not; a business record is not testimonial; grand jury testimony is testimonial.
• B. A police report is never testimonial.
• C. A police report used for a prosecution is not testimonial.
• D. Grand jury testimony is not testimonial.

Answer: (D)

The key idea is identifying when a statement is considered testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes. Grand jury testimony is not testimonial. The grand jury operates to determine whether there is enough evidence to indict, and defendants generally do not have a right to cross-examine witnesses in that process; because its purpose isn’t to prove assertions in a trial against a specific accused, its statements are treated as non-testimonial for Confrontation Clause analysis. This is why the statement about grand jury testimony being not testimonial is true. The other statements run into problems: a police report prepared for use in a prosecution is typically testimonial because its purpose is to establish facts for a subsequent trial, triggering confrontation-right concerns; a police report prepared for an emergency is not a neat fit in this framework, and the classification can depend on context, so it isn’t the universal truth the option asserts; and while the business records doctrine can render police records admissible as non-testimonial hearsay when they’re kept in the ordinary course of business, the blanket claim that a business record is not testimonial fits general practice but is not the specific basis for the truth of the statement in this comparison.

The key idea is identifying when a statement is considered testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes. Grand jury testimony is not testimonial. The grand jury operates to determine whether there is enough evidence to indict, and defendants generally do not have a right to cross-examine witnesses in that process; because its purpose isn’t to prove assertions in a trial against a specific accused, its statements are treated as non-testimonial for Confrontation Clause analysis.

This is why the statement about grand jury testimony being not testimonial is true. The other statements run into problems: a police report prepared for use in a prosecution is typically testimonial because its purpose is to establish facts for a subsequent trial, triggering confrontation-right concerns; a police report prepared for an emergency is not a neat fit in this framework, and the classification can depend on context, so it isn’t the universal truth the option asserts; and while the business records doctrine can render police records admissible as non-testimonial hearsay when they’re kept in the ordinary course of business, the blanket claim that a business record is not testimonial fits general practice but is not the specific basis for the truth of the statement in this comparison.