State court hears Crawford appeal

 The name Anthony Dale Crawford is one that many Central Virginians would like to think of as locked up with the key thrown away. Yet on May 17, the Virginia State Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal that could affect Crawford’s convictions and his sentence of more than two life terms. 

“The issue that’s before the court now,” says Steven Rosenfield, Crawford’s attorney, “has to do with whether or not Sarah Crawford’s recorded testimony should have been allowed when the witness was not available to be cross-examined.” 

A little background: Anthony Dale Crawford, 50, was convicted in 2007 of first-degree murder, rape and other charges in the killing of his estranged wife, 33-year-old Sarah Crawford, whose body was found naked, placed in a “frog-like” position (with his semen on the body) at the Quality Inn on Emmet Street in 2004. In what is surely one of the most gruesome cases in Charlottesville history, Crawford, who was previously acquitted in a sexual assault case involving his first wife, was sentenced to two life terms and 67 years in prison. 

Since that time, his appeals have twisted and turned. On December 23, 2008, a three-judge panel from the Virginia Court of Appeals reversed all of Crawford’s convictions, except that of grand larceny (for stealing the victim’s car). The court stated that Crawford’s convictions were based on insufficient evidence, and that the court’s previous admission of an affidavit from his wife violated Crawford’s rights under a portion of the Sixth Amendment known as the Confrontation Clause.  

In an affidavit for a restraining order, Sarah Crawford told police officers: “On October 30, 2004, [Anthony Dale Crawford] called me and told me that I must want to die. He also said he understands why husbands kill their wives.” 

Prior to his original trial, Anthony Dale Crawford motioned to have Sarah’s affidavit suppressed, arguing that her testimony was hearsay and inadmissible under Crawford v. Washington (541 U.S. 36), a Supreme Court decision based on appeals by a Michael Crawford (no relation) of Washington state. The decision in Michael Crawford’s case basically threw the Confrontation Clause on its head. 

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of testimonial evidence could not be admissible in a case unless that person could be cross-examined, a decision that had a profound effect on prosecutors’ ability to prove their cases through previously admissible evidence. In other words, where once the deceased Sarah Crawford’s affidavit might have been upheld as testimony of Anthony Dale Crawford’s premeditative declaration of his intent to kill, her words are now in jeopardy of being excluded from the record.   

On December 29, 2009, the Virginia Court of Appeals then handed down a reversal of the three-judge opinion, upholding the original convictions and the admission of Sarah Crawford’s affidavit. However, the Virginia State Supreme Court has now agreed to hear arguments from Crawford’s lawyers, as well as the Commonwealth’s Attorney, in an appeal of the December 2009 decision.  

“This decision,” says Rosenfield, “will effect other courts around the Commonwealth in determining when testimony is admissible.” 

So what does this all mean for Crawford? The Virginia State Supreme Court can do one of three things: uphold the original convictions and sentencing, reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision with Crawford’s convictions still upheld, or remand the whole thing back to the trial courts, where Crawford would then be allowed a new trial with a new jury.

“It was a horrific crime,” says Joe Platania, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney, “but appeals are part of criminal prosecution. We’ve been in close contact with the Attorney General’s office and we are hopeful that Mr. Crawford’s convictions and sentences will be upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court.”

C-VILLE welcomes news tips from readers. Send them to news@c-ville.com.