David Savage of the Los Angeles Times  reports an interesting perspective about Justice Scalia’s role in the development of criminal procedure.  Since Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), Justice Scalia  has led the charge for more strict enforcement of the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause. Savage’s article points out that originalist approaches to constitutional interpretation do not always produce “conservative” results.  Predicting how the current Court will take up and decide cases on criminal procedure is a tricky proposition, but perhaps a  way to understand the current Court’s division on questions of criminal procedure is as a split between formalists and pragmatists — between those inclined to enforce a bright-line constitutional rule and those inclined to account for practical considerations.