Whether a criminal defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him

QUESTION PRESENTED In this capital case, Petitioner Dennis Hicks was convicted of the capital murder of Joshua Duncan based largely on statements provided by two young children who purportedly witnessed the murder—Jonah Chance (“Chance”) Norris (age 8 at the time of the crime) and Jatton Norris (age 4 at the time of the crime). Even though the evidence at trial was that Chance was in I]linois at the time of Mr. Duncan’s death, the two children were questioned several times by Detective Peak of the Mobile Police Department, who repeatedly asked them whether they had seen Mr. Duncan and Mr. Hicks fighting. The children gave inconsistent statements, including statements that implicated Mr. Hicks. When the children testified at Mr. Hicks’ trial nearly five years later, however, Jatton recanted his prior incriminating statement and Chance gave only vague testimony regarding the incident, which conflicted with his recorded statement. To bolster this testimony, the State presented nearly all of the children’s prior recorded statements to the jury. Although the State argued that the statements were admissible for valid non-hearsay purposes—and the Court gave a vague limiting instruction that the statements should not be considered for their truth (without informing the jury of any other purpose for which the statements could be considered)—the State also presented expert testimony that the prior statements were the “best” evidence of the children’s observations of the crime, and then ultimately relied heavily on the prior out-of-court statements in their closing arguments, as evidence of Mr. Hicks’ guilt. In his direct appeal, Mr. Hicks argued that the admission of the children’s prior recorded statements was improper and violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers and this Court’s holding in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Mr. Hicks’ conviction, twice remanded his case on other grounds for further proceedings regarding his death sentence, and ultimately affirmed the sentence. The question presented is as follows: 1 1. Whether a criminal defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, as set forth in Crawford v. Washington and its progeny, when prior testimonial statements are admitted and relied upon in order to bolster the testimony of child witnesses with little or no recollection of the events that are the subject matter of their testimony and prior statements. il