 Analysis of Washington has focused on the decision in the broader context of procedural trial rights . A 2007 article in the Georgetown Law Review by Martin Hewett was critical of the decision . Hewett 's main criticism was based on the Court 's lack of a standard on which to evaluate whether certain evidence was " material " to a defendant 's case . Hewett noted that in a post @-@ Washington decision in 1973 , the Court applied a " case @-@ specific " decision rather than a " general constitutional standard " . This line of decisions , Hewett argued , led to a standard which allows a trial judge the authority to determine the " actual reliability of the evidence " in cases where a witness is not present . The " newly @-@ seized power " was limited to the cases at hand in a manner which suggested the ambiguous calculus the Court was using was flawed . This vagueness in the standard came from cases where the " situations [ involved ] the reliability of the excluded evidence [ that ] could <unk> " . Hewett concluded by arguing that all of these cases had diminished the protections of the jury and of the defendant 's right to have his own defense . 
