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.
22 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
Michigan v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2012But he then acknowledged, "It can be said, of course, that under Crawford analysis of whether a statement is testimonial requires consideration of all the circumstances, and so is also something of a multifactor balancing test.'" Bryant, 131 S.Ct. at 1176 (Scalia, J., dissenting). ¶ 30 We write out of concern that the Crawford test is, at a minimum, "something of a multifactor balancing test" and, at most, an "`amorphous, if not entirely subjective'" test when applied to autopsy reports and derivative forensic reports offered as evidence in criminal trials. 2012But he then acknowledged, "It can be said, of course, that under Crawford analysis of whether a statement is testimonial requires consideration of all the circumstances, and so is also something of a multifactor balancing test.'" Bryant, 131 S.Ct. at 1176 (Scalia, J., dissenting). ¶ 30 We write out of concern that the Crawford test is, at a minimum, "something of a multifactor balancing test" and, at most, an "`amorphous, if not entirely subjective'" test when applied to autopsy reports and derivative forensic reports offered as evidence in criminal trials. | 2 | 2 |
Kimmelman v. Morrisongreen2 sentences2009See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 , 106 S. Ct. 2574 , 91 L. 2009See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 , 106 S. Ct. 2574 , 91 L. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Markelgreen2 sentences2007Id. at 273, ¶ 18. 2007Id. at 273, ¶ 18. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Summersgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. 2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. | 2 | 2 |
UNITED STATES v. JOSÉ RODRIGUEZ-MARRERO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. OMAR F. GENAO-SANCHEZ, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LUIS ROLDAN-CORTESgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. 2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Douglas Merrill Nielsengreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. 2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Stanley Gilbertgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. 2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Jermaine Savoiresgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. 2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Thomas Hinton AKA James Kirkland Thomas Hintongreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. 2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. | 2 | 2 |
John Middleton v. Don Roper, 1green2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. 2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. | 2 | 2 |
Guidry v. Dretkegreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. 2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. | 2 | 2 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2012See 541 U.S. at 52 ; see also People v. Dendel, 289 Mich. App. 445, 458-68 , 797 N.W.2d 645 (2010) (discussing numerous confrontation clause cases involving forensic reports and holding that statements in analyst’s report of glucose tests requested by medical examiner were testimonial); Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 2010 OK CR 23, ¶ 28-35 , 241 P.3d 214 , cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 259 (2011) (discussing numerous cases and holding statements in autopsy report were testimonial). ¶38 Under Crawford’s analysis, our legal inquiry begins to resemble the old-fashioned game of “telephone,” as we must atte 2005Id. at 60 n.9. ¶23 The primary issue in the present case is whether McCottry’s 911 call constitutes a “testimonial” statement under the Crawford analysis. | 1 | 6 |
UNITED STATES v. McCLAINgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. 2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Dendelgreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kronichgreen2 sentences2012We adhered to our reasoning in Kirkpatrick and held “such a record is not testimonial for purposes of the Crawford analysis.” Id. at 902. 2012We adhered to our reasoning in Kirkpatrick and held “such a record is not testimonial for purposes of the Crawford analysis.” Id. at 902. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schriro v. Summerlin
green
2 sentences2007Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 , 124 S.Ct. 2519 , 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004) (new rule that juries, not judges, must find aggravating factors that enhance a sentence does not apply retroactively because it is not a watershed rule); Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 241-42 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (new rule that prosecutor may not inform jury a death penalty recommendation is merely advisory does not apply retroactively because it is not a watershed rule); Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (a new constitutional rule applies to all cases pen 2007Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 , 124 S.Ct. 2519 , 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004) (new rule that juries, not judges, must find aggravating factors that enhance a sentence does not apply retroactively because it is not a watershed rule); Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 241-42 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (new rule that prosecutor may not inform jury a death penalty recommendation is merely advisory does not apply retroactively because it is not a watershed rule); Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (a new constitutional rule applies to all cases pen | 2 | 2007–2012 |
State v. Crawford
green
2 sentences2009Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 92 . ¶ 7 Crawford appealed, contending that due process required the State to provide pretrial notice that he faced a mandatory life sentence and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to examine his out-of-state conviction and advise him that, if convicted, he faced a life sentence. 2009Crawford, 159 Wash.2d at 92 , 147 P.3d 1288 . ¶ 7 Crawford appealed, contending that due process required the State to provide pretrial notice that he faced a mandatory life sentence and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to examine his out-of-state conviction and advise him that, if convicted, he faced a life sentence. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Whorton v. Bockting
green
2 sentences2007Whorton, 127 S. Ct. at 1183 . ¶9 Although the Supreme Court recently held that Crawford does not apply retroactively, whether a violation of the right of confrontation requires automatic reversal presents a distinct issue. 2007Whorton, 127 S. Ct. at 1183 . ¶9 Although the Supreme Court recently held that Crawford does not apply retroactively, whether a violation of the right of confrontation requires automatic reversal presents a distinct issue. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Rohrich
green
2 sentences2007“Significantly, prior statements must be excluded under the Crawford rule only if a witness is unavailable at trial for purposes of the confrontation clause.” State v. Price, 158 Wn.2d 630, 639 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006). ¶16 In Rohrich , the State did not question the child witness about the alleged acts, thereby preventing the defendant from cross-examining her. 132 Wn.2d at 474 . 2007“Significantly, prior statements must be excluded under the Crawford rule only if a witness is unavailable at trial for purposes of the confrontation clause.” State v. Price, 158 Wn.2d 630, 639 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006). ¶16 In Rohrich , the State did not question the child witness about the alleged acts, thereby preventing the defendant from cross-examining her. 132 Wn.2d at 474 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Bishop v. Miche
green
2 sentences2007Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wn.2d 518, 523 , 973 P.2d 465 (1999). ¶28 We note at the outset that if on remand the trial court finds M.H. competent to testify at Hopkins’ retrial, the Crawford issue would be moot. 2007Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wash.2d 518, 523 , 973 P.2d 465 (1999). ¶ 28 We note at the outset that if on remand the trial court finds MH competent to testify at Hopkins' retrial, the Crawford issue would be moot. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Price
green
2 sentences2007“Significantly, prior statements must be excluded under the Crawford rule only if a witness is unavailable at trial for purposes of the confrontation clause.” State v. Price, 158 Wn.2d 630, 639 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006). ¶16 In Rohrich , the State did not question the child witness about the alleged acts, thereby preventing the defendant from cross-examining her. 132 Wn.2d at 474 . 2007“Significantly, prior statements must be excluded under the Crawford rule only if a witness is unavailable at trial for purposes of the confrontation clause.” State v. Price, 158 Wn.2d 630, 639 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006). ¶16 In Rohrich , the State did not question the child witness about the alleged acts, thereby preventing the defendant from cross-examining her. 132 Wn.2d at 474 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Price
green
2 sentences2007“Significantly, prior statements must be excluded under the Crawford rule only if a witness is unavailable at trial for purposes of the confrontation clause.” State v. Price, 158 Wn.2d 630, 639 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006). ¶16 In Rohrich , the State did not question the child witness about the alleged acts, thereby preventing the defendant from cross-examining her. 132 Wn.2d at 474 . 2007“Significantly, prior statements must be excluded under the Crawford rule only if a witness is unavailable at trial for purposes of the confrontation clause.” State v. Price, 158 Wn.2d 630, 639 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006). ¶16 In Rohrich , the State did not question the child witness about the alleged acts, thereby preventing the defendant from cross-examining her. 132 Wn.2d at 474 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
cluster 795530
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. 2007See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hinton, 423 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2006); Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, 331 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir. 2004); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 857 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1303 (10th Cir. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Bishop v. Miche
green
2 sentences2007Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wn.2d 518, 523 , 973 P.2d 465 (1999). ¶28 We note at the outset that if on remand the trial court finds M.H. competent to testify at Hopkins’ retrial, the Crawford issue would be moot. 2007Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wash.2d 518, 523 , 973 P.2d 465 (1999). ¶ 28 We note at the outset that if on remand the trial court finds MH competent to testify at Hopkins' retrial, the Crawford issue would be moot. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. McFarland
green
2 sentences2006State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). ¶30 Here, the record is readily reviewable on the Crawford principle that “testimonial” statements given in a criminal trial without the opportunity of cross-examination by the defendant violate the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution. 2006State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). ¶30 Here, the record is readily reviewable on the Crawford principle that “testimonial” statements given in a criminal trial without the opportunity of cross-examination by the defendant violate the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
California v. Green
red
2 sentences2006In California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 , 90 S. Ct. 1930 , 26 L. 2006In California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 , 90 S. Ct. 1930 , 26 L. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Hanna
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 1021 (citations omitted) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 67 ). ¶ 30 While “the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of federal constitutional law is persuasive authority,” State v. Hanna, 123 Wn.2d 704, 718 , 871 P.2d 135 (1994), habeas granted sub nom. 2005Id. at 1021 (citations omitted) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 67 ). ¶ 30 While “the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of federal constitutional law is persuasive authority,” State v. Hanna, 123 Wn.2d 704, 718 , 871 P.2d 135 (1994), habeas granted sub nom. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Pudmaroff v. Allen
green
2 sentences1999As the Court of Appeals put it, “[t]he question ... is whether the Legislature’s amendment of these two definitions indicates the Legislature intended to change the Crawford rule, and treat a bicyclist in a crosswalk the same as a bicyclist on any other portion of the roadway—that is, entitled to none of the usual protections of the crosswalk.” Pudmaroff, 89 Wn. 1999As the Court of Appeals put it, “[t]he question ... is whether the Legislature’s amendment of these two definitions indicates the Legislature intended to change the Crawford rule, and treat a bicyclist in a crosswalk the same as a bicyclist on any other portion of the roadway—that is, entitled to none of the usual protections of the crosswalk.” Pudmaroff, 89 Wn. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence2012We would suggest that courts should not be forced to allow a defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses to be determined by something resembling a game, especially in the context of scientific forensic evidence. ¶39 In Melendez-Diaz , the State of Massachusetts argued that the reliability of “ ‘neutral, scientific testing’ ” might warrant an exception from the confrontation clause’s requirements. 557 U.S. at 317 (quoting Melendez-Diaz Br. of Resp’t at 29). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State
green
2 sentences2012See 541 U.S. at 52 ; see also People v. Dendel, 289 Mich. App. 445, 458-68 , 797 N.W.2d 645 (2010) (discussing numerous confrontation clause cases involving forensic reports and holding that statements in analyst’s report of glucose tests requested by medical examiner were testimonial); Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 2010 OK CR 23, ¶ 28-35 , 241 P.3d 214 , cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 259 (2011) (discussing numerous cases and holding statements in autopsy report were testimonial). ¶38 Under Crawford’s analysis, our legal inquiry begins to resemble the old-fashioned game of “telephone,” as we must atte 2012See 541 U.S. at 52 ; see also People v. Dendel, 289 Mich. App. 445, 458-68 , 797 N.W.2d 645 (2010) (discussing numerous confrontation clause cases involving forensic reports and holding that statements in analyst’s report of glucose tests requested by medical examiner were testimonial); Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 2010 OK CR 23, ¶ 28-35 , 241 P.3d 214 , cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 259 (2011) (discussing numerous cases and holding statements in autopsy report were testimonial). ¶38 Under Crawford’s analysis, our legal inquiry begins to resemble the old-fashioned game of “telephone,” as we must atte | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Jenner v. Martuscello green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| United States v. Rueda-Rivera green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
United States v. Roberto Cervantes-Flores
green
2 sentences2012We held “that neither certification of DOL drivers’ records nor certifications as to the absence of such records are testimonial for purposes of Crawford.” Id. ¶26 In assessing the character of the DOL certification, we adopted the rationale set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Cervantes-Flores, 421 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 2005) and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Rueda-Rivera, 396 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2005). 2012We held “that neither certification of DOL drivers’ records nor certifications as to the absence of such records are testimonial for purposes of Crawford.” Id. ¶26 In assessing the character of the DOL certification, we adopted the rationale set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Cervantes-Flores, 421 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 2005) and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Rueda-Rivera, 396 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2005). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Crawford green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Griffith v. Kentucky green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Sawyer v. Smith green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Rohrich green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Kronich green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. NMK green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. N.M.K. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Kronich green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.