Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jean Joseph Deebgreen2 sentences2003He urged that the Court adopt what has been dubbed the “near-miss” theory, which “maintains that a hearsay statement that is close to, but that does not fit precisely into, a recognized hearsay exception is *277 not admissible under [the residual hearsay exception.]” United States v Deeb, 13 F3d 1532, 1536 (CA 11, 1994). 2002This argument has been characterized by federal courts as the “near-miss” theory, “which maintains that a hearsay statement that is close to, but that does not fit precisely into, a recognized hearsay exception is not admissible under [the residual hearsay exception.]” United States v Deeb, 13 F3d 1532, 1536 (CA 11, 1994). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jenkinsgreen1 sentence2015MRE 802; People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 350 ; 835 NW2d 319 (2013); see also Jenkins, 450 Mich at 261-262 . | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Russellgreen1 sentence1971In a footnote at 128 (88 S Ct at 1623, 20 L Ed 2d at 480, 481), the Court noted: “We emphasize that the hearsay statement inculpating petitioner was clearly inadmissible against him under traditional rules of evidence. * * * There is not before us, therefore, any recognized exception to the hearsay rule insofar as petitioner is concerned and we intimate no view whatever that such exceptions necessarily raise questions under the Confrontation Clause.” Case law postdating Bruton makes it clear, however, that there is indeed room enough for hearsay exceptions within the scope of the Confrontation | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Musser
green
2 sentences2015MRE 802; People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 350 ; 835 NW2d 319 (2013); see also Jenkins, 450 Mich at 261-262 . 2015MRE 802; People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 350 ; 835 NW2d 319 (2013); see also Jenkins, 450 Mich at 261-262 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Donald Lee Earles and Catherine Papajohn
green
1 sentence2003The Court of Appeals rejected the near miss-theory and defendant’s narrow interpretation of MRE 803(24) and, instead, adopted the approach taken by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in United States v Earles, 113 F3d 796 (CA 8, 1997): The meaning of the catch-all’s “specifically covered” language has caused considerable debate. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
California v. Green
green
2 sentences1986California v Green, 399 US 149, 155-156 ; 90 S Ct 1930 ; 26 L Ed 2d 489 (1970). 1986California v Green, 399 US 149, 155-156 ; 90 S Ct 1930 ; 26 L Ed 2d 489 (1970). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.