green
Positive treatment
15.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Sinclair
(3×)
See United States v. James, 712 F.3d 79, 95 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 572 U.S. 1134 , 134 S. Ct. 2660 , 189 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Sinclair
(3×)
See United States v. James , 712 F.3d 79 , 95 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 572 U.S. 1134 , 134 S. Ct. 2660 , 189 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Garner v. People
(2×)
See Galloway v. State, 122 So. 3d 614, 663 (Miss. 2013) (“The United States Supreme Court has not decided whether Biggers applies to an in-court identification not preceded by an impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification.”), cert. denied, 572 U.S. 1134 (2014); see also Dickson, 141 A.3d at 821 (“The United States Supreme Court has not yet addressed the question of whether first time in-court identifications are in the category of unnecessarily suggestive procedures that trigger due process protections.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. David Bass(072669)
See United States v. James, 712 F.3d 79, 95-96 (2d Cir.2013) (noting that the pre-Williams case law compels evaluation of circumstances under which analysis was prepared to determine primary purpose), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 2660 , 189 L.Ed.2d (2014); State v. Hutchison, 482 S.W.3d 893 , 911 n. 6, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 83 , at *44 n.6, 2016 WL 531266 , at *14 n.6 (Tenn.2016) (noting that "[n]ot all autopsies are done for the purpose of establishing a fact for eventual criminal prosecution[,]” and that the "totality of the circumstances” should be considered in determination of primar…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Walker
(3×)
See Williams v. Illinois , supra, 567 U.S. at 106 , 132 S.Ct. 2221 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 126-27 , 132 S.Ct. 2221 (Kagan, J., dissenting); see also United States v. James , 712 F.3d 79 , 95 (2d Cir. 2013) ("[t]he Williams plurality's first rationale-that the laboratory report *1257 there was offered as basis evidence, and not for its truth-was roundly rejected by five [j]ustices"), cert. denied, 572 U.S. 1134 , 134 S. Ct. 2660 , 189 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Montrond
Compare Commonwealth v. Lezynski, 466 Mass. 113, 116 (2013) (expert witness reading verbatim into record toxicology report created by another violated right of confrontation of defendant charged with possession of class B substance with intent to distribute), and United States v. Ignasiak, 667 F.3d 1217, 1232 (11th Cir. 2012) (autopsy report testimonial because “made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial” [citation omitted]), with United States v. James, 712 F.3d 79, 101-102 (2d Cir. 20…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Keith McGill
(2×)
See United States v. Baugham, 449 F.3d 167, 171-72 (D.C.Cir.2006) (testimony and recordings documenting crack cocaine transactions alone provided sufficient evidence to support conviction for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine); see also United States v. Turner, 709 F.3d 1187, 1195 (7th Cir.2013) (similar), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2660 , 189 L.Ed.2d 208 (2014). *947 Here, sufficient evidence supported Alfred’s conviction even without lab analysis.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Reginald Roach (068874)
See, e.g., Lopez, supra, 45 A.3d at 13 (emphasizing that testifying analyst “personally reviewed and independently analyzed all the raw data, formulated the allele table, and then articulated his own final conclusions concerning the DNA profiles and their corresponding matches”); see also State v. Ortiz-Zape, 743 S.E.2d 156, 164-65 (N.C. 2013) (finding no confrontation violation where testifying expert was co-analyst who performed lab’s technical review and who reached independent conclusions 31 based on review of cocaine substance analysis report as well as all raw data and calibration …
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Reginald Roach (068874)
(3×)
See, e.g., Lopez, supra, 45 A.3d at 13 (emphasizing that testifying analyst “personally reviewed and independently analyzed all the raw data, formulated the allele table, and then articulated his own final conclusions concerning the DNA profiles and their corresponding matches”); see also State v. Ortiz-Zape, 743 S.E.2d 156, 164-65 (N.C. 2013) (finding no confrontation violation where testifying expert was co-analyst who performed lab’s technical review and who reached independent conclusions 31 based on review of cocaine substance analysis report as well as all raw data and calibration …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hensley v. Roden
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. James, 712 F.3d 79, 99 (2d Cir.2013) (deciding that the autopsy report at issue “was not testimonial because it was not prepared primarily to create a record for use at a criminal trial”), cert. denied , — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2660 , 189 L.Ed.2d 208 , 2014 WL 2178370 (May 27, 2014); People v. Dungo, 55 Cal.4th 608 , 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 527 , 286 *734 P.3d 442, 450 (2012) (finding that even though California’s statutory scheme required the reporting of suspicious autopsy findings to law enforcement, an autopsy serves several purposes and the “autopsy report itself…
Danny TURNER
v.
UNITED STATES.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 13–127..
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 27, 2014.
Published
Case below,
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.