Harris v. Wittman, 560 U.S. 966 (2010). · Go Syfert
Harris v. Wittman, 560 U.S. 966 (2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“statement unwittingly made to a confidential informant and recorded by the government is not 'testimonial' for confrontation clause purposes”
31 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Patel (connappct, 2019-01-08)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Patel
Conn. App. Ct. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
statement unwittingly made to a confidential informant and recorded by the government is not 'testimonial' for confrontation clause purposes
discussed Cited "see" State v. Dunn (2×)
Kan. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See [State v.] Ellmaker, 289 Kan. [1132,] 1151, [ 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied 560 U.S. 966 (2010)].
cited Cited "see" State v. Dunn
Kan. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See [State v.] Ellmaker, 289 Kan. [1132,] 1151, [ 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied 560 U.S. 966 (2010)].
cited Cited "see" State v. Gleason
Kan. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 1138-39 , 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied 560 U.S. 966 (2010).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Dominguez
Kan. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
In those circumstances this court has held the clearly erroneous standard of review applies. 298 Kan. at 644-46; see State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 1139 , 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied 560 U.S. 966 (2010); see also Tapia, 295 Kan. at 995 (clearly erroneous standard of review applied on appeal to defendant’s juiy instruction issue when defendant’s request for jury instruction before district court was interpreted as being so indistinct as to not clearly communicate the request or, alternatively, as being different from the request being made on appeal).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Hagaman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: compare · confidence low
The People, in turn, impeached the mother’s credibility by cross-examining her regarding her prior statement to Shea that defendant had handled the camera while they were at the unit. 2 There may well be circumstances where impeachment evidence would remain material and exculpatory — and thereby warrant disclosure — even if the People attempted “to avoid [its] disclosure ... by not calling the relevant witness to testify” themselves (United States v Jackson, 345 F3d 59, 71 [2d Cir 2003], certs denied 540 US 1157 [2004], 541 US 956 *1186 [2004]; compare United States v Williams-Davis,…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." John Jordy v. State
Tex. App. · 2013 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675, 687 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (assuming evidence inadmissible under rule 404(b), and holding no abuse of discretion because appellant opened the door), cert. denied, 560 U.S. 966 , 130.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jean Leonard Harris
v.
Sandra Wittman
No. 09-1249.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 14, 2010.
560 U.S. 966

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 590 F.3d 730.